European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the exercise of voting rights by shareholders of companies having their registered office in a Member State and whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2004/109/EC (COM(2005)0685 – C6-0003/2006 – 2005/0265(COD))

P6_TA(2007)0042 A6-0024/2007

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0685)(1),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 44 and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0003/2006),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0024/2007),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Asks the Commission to consult Parliament before finalising a Recommendation related to issues and topics in the context of the proposed Directive;

4.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 15 February 2007 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2007/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 44 and 95 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(2),

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty(3),

Whereas:

(1)  In its Communication to the Council and the European Parliament of 21 May 2003, entitled "Modernising Company Law and enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A Plan to Move Forward", the Commission indicated that new tailored initiatives should be taken with a view to enhancing shareholders' rights in listed companies and that problems relating to cross-border voting should be solved as a matter of urgency.

(2)  In its Resolution of 21 April 2004(4), the European Parliament expressed its support for the Commission's intention to strengthen shareholders' rights, in particular through the extension of the rules on transparency, proxy voting rights, the possibility of participating in general meetings via electronic means and ensuring that cross-border voting rights are able to be exercised.

(3)  Holders of shares carrying voting rights should be able to exercise those rights given that they are reflected in the price that has to be paid at the acquisition of the shares. Furthermore, effective shareholder control is a pre-requisite to sound corporate governance and should, therefore, be facilitated and encouraged. It is therefore necessary to adopt measures to approximate the laws of the Member States to this end. Obstacles which deter shareholders from voting, such as making the exercise of voting rights subject to the blocking of shares during a certain period before the general meeting, should be removed. However, this Directive does not affect existing Community legislation on units issued by collective investment undertakings or on units acquired or disposed of in such undertakings.

(4)  The existing Community legislation is not sufficient to achieve this objective. Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2001 on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those securities(5) focuses on the information issuers have to disclose to the market and accordingly does not deal with the shareholder voting process itself. Moreover, Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market(6) imposes on issuers an obligation to make available certain information and documents relevant to general meetings, but such information and documents are to be made available in the issuer's home Member State. Therefore, certain minimum standards should be introduced with a view to protecting investors and promoting the smooth and effective exercise of shareholder rights attaching to voting shares. As regards rights other than the right to vote, Member States are free to extend the application of these minimum standards also to non-voting shares, to the extent that those shares do not enjoy such standards already.

(5)  Significant proportions of shares in listed companies are held by shareholders who do not reside in the Member State in which the company has its registered office. Non-resident shareholders should be able to exercise their rights in relation to the general meeting as easily as shareholders who reside in the Member State in which the company has its registered office. This requires that existing obstacles which hinder the access of non-resident shareholders to the information relevant to the general meeting and the exercise of voting rights without physically attending the general meeting be removed. The removal of these obstacles should also benefit resident shareholders who do not or cannot attend the general meeting.

(6)  Shareholders should be able to cast informed votes at, or in advance of, the general meeting, no matter where they reside. All shareholders should have sufficient time to consider the documents intended to be submitted to the general meeting and determine how they will vote their shares. To this end, timely notice should be given of the general meeting, and shareholders should be provided with the complete information intended to be submitted to the general meeting. The possibilities which modern technologies offer to make information instantly accessible should be exploited. This Directive presupposes that all listed companies already have an internet site.

(7)  Shareholders should, in principle, have the possibility to put items on the agenda of the general meeting and to table draft resolutions for items on the agenda. Without prejudice to different time-frames and modalities which are currently in use across the Community, the exercise of those rights should be made subject to two basic rules, namely that any threshold required for the exercise of those rights should not exceed 5% of the company's share capital and that all shareholders should in every case receive the final version of the agenda in sufficient time to prepare for the discussion and voting on each item on the agenda.

(8)  Every shareholder should, in principle, have the possibility to ask questions related to items on the agenda of the general meeting and to have them answered, while the rules on how and when questions are to be asked and answered should be left to be determined by Member States.

(9)  Companies should face no legal obstacles in offering to their shareholders any means of electronic participation in the general meeting. Voting without attending the general meeting in person, whether by correspondence or by electronic means, should not be subject to constraints other than those necessary for the verification of identity and the security of electronic communications. However, this should not prevent Member States from adopting rules aimed at ensuring that the results of the voting reflect the intentions of the shareholders in all circumstances, including rules aimed at addressing situations where new circumstances occur or are revealed after a shareholder has cast his vote by correspondence or by electronic means.

(10)  Good corporate governance requires a smooth and effective process of proxy voting. Existing limitations and constraints which make proxy voting cumbersome and costly should therefore be removed. But good corporate governance also requires adequate safeguards against a possible abuse of proxy voting. The proxy holder should therefore be bound to observe any instructions he may have received from the shareholder and Member States should be able to introduce appropriate measures ensuring that the proxy holder does not pursue any interest other than that of the shareholder, irrespective of the reason that has given rise to the conflict of interests. Measures against possible abuse may, in particular, consist of regimes which Member States may adopt in order to regulate the activity of persons who actively engage in the collection of proxies or who have in fact collected more than a certain significant number of proxies, notably to ensure an adequate degree of reliability and transparency. Shareholders have an unfettered right under this Directive to appoint such persons as proxy holders to attend and vote at general meetings in their name. This Directive does not, however, affect any rules or sanctions that Member States may impose on such persons where votes have been cast by making fraudulent use of proxies collected. Moreover, this Directive does not impose any obligation on companies to verify that proxy holders cast votes in accordance with the voting instructions of the appointing shareholders.

(11)  Where financial intermediaries are involved, the effectiveness of voting upon instructions relies, to a great extent, on the efficiency of the chain of intermediaries, given that investors are frequently unable to exercise the voting rights attached to their shares without the cooperation of every intermediary in the chain, who may not have an economic stake in the shares. In order to enable the investor to exercise his voting rights in cross-border situations, it is therefore important that intermediaries facilitate the exercise of voting rights. Further consideration should be given to this issue by the Commission in the context of a Recommendation, with a view to ensuring that investors have access to effective voting services and that voting rights are exercised in accordance with the instructions given by those investors.

(12)  While the timing of disclosure to the administrative, management or supervisory body as well as to the public of votes cast in advance of the general meeting electronically or by correspondence is an important matter of corporate governance, it can be determined by Member States.

(13)  Voting results should be established through methods that reflect the voting intentions expressed by shareholders, and they should be made transparent after the general meeting at least through the company's internet site.

(14)  Since the objective of this Directive, namely to allow shareholders effectively to make use of their rights throughout the Community, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States on the basis of the existing Community legislation and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the measures, be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(15)  In accordance with paragraph 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making(7), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Community, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Chapter I

General provisions

Article 1

Subject-matter and scope

1.  This Directive establishes requirements in relation to the exercise of certain shareholder rights attaching to voting shares in relation to general meetings of companies which have their registered office in a Member State and whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market situated or operating within a Member State.

2.  The Member State competent to regulate matters covered in this Directive shall be the Member State in which the company has its registered office, and references to the "applicable law" are references to the law of that Member State.

3.  Member States may exempt from this Directive the following types of companies:

Article 2

Definitions

Article 3

Further national measures

This Directive shall not prevent Member States from imposing further obligations on companies or from otherwise taking further measures to facilitate the exercise by shareholders of the rights referred to in this Directive.

Chapter II

General meetings of shareholders

Article 4

Equal treatment of shareholders

The company shall ensure equal treatment for all shareholders who are in the same position with regard to participation and the exercise of voting rights in the general meeting.

Article 5

Information prior to the general meeting

1.  Without prejudice to Articles 9(4) and 11(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids(10), Member States shall ensure that the company issues the convocation of the general meeting in one of the manners specified in paragraph 2 of this Article not later than on the twenty-first day before the day of the meeting.

Member States may provide that, where the company offers the facility for shareholders to vote by electronic means accessible to all shareholders, the general meeting of shareholders may decide that it shall issue the convocation of a general meeting which is not an annual general meeting in one of the manners specified in paragraph 2 of this Article not later than on the fourteenth day before the day of the meeting. This decision is to be taken by a majority of not less than two thirds of the votes attaching to the shares or the subscribed capital represented and for a duration not later than the next annual general meeting.

Member States need not apply the minimum periods referred to in the first and second subparagraphs for the second or subsequent convocation of a general meeting issued for lack of a quorum required for the meeting convened by the first convocation, provided that this Article has been complied with for the first convocation and no new item is put on the agenda, and that at least ten days elapse between the final convocation and the date of the general meeting.

2.  Without prejudice to further requirements for notification or publication laid down by the competent Member State as defined in Article 1(2), the company shall be required to issue the convocation referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article in a manner ensuring fast access to it on a non-discriminatory basis. The Member State shall require the company to use such media as may reasonably be relied upon for the effective dissemination of information to the public throughout the Community. The Member State may not impose an obligation to use only media whose operators are established on its territory.

The Member State need not apply the first subparagraph to companies that are able to identify the names and addresses of their shareholders from a current register of shareholders, provided that the company is under an obligation to send the convocation to each of its registered shareholders.

In either case the company may not charge any specific cost for issuing the convocation in the prescribed manner.

3.  The convocation referred to in paragraph 1 shall at least:

4.  Member States shall ensure that, for a continuous period beginning not later than on the twenty-first day before the day of the general meeting and including the day of the meeting, the company shall make available to its shareholders on its internet site at least the following information:

Where the forms referred to in point (e) cannot be made available on the internet for technical reasons, the company shall indicate on its internet site how the forms can be obtained on paper. In this case the company shall be required to send the forms by postal services and free of charge to every shareholder who so requests.

Where, pursuant to Articles 9(4) or 11(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC, or to the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article, the convocation of the general meeting is issued later than on the twenty-first day before the meeting, the period specified in this paragraph shall be shortened accordingly.

Article 6

Right to put items on the agenda of the general meeting and to table draft resolutions

1.  Member States shall ensure that shareholders, acting individually or collectively:

Member States may provide that the right referred to in point (a) may be exercised only in relation to the annual general meeting, provided that shareholders, acting individually or collectively, have the right to call, or to require the company to call, a general meeting which is not an annual general meeting with an agenda including at least all the items requested by those shareholders.

Member States may provide that those rights shall be exercised in writing (submitted by postal services or electronic means).

2.  Where any of the rights specified in paragraph 1 is subject to the condition that the relevant shareholder or shareholders hold a minimum stake in the company, such minimum stake shall not exceed 5% of the share capital.

3.  Each Member State shall set a single deadline, with reference to a specified number of days prior to the general meeting or the convocation, by which shareholders may exercise the right referred to in paragraph 1, point (a). In the same manner each Member State may set a deadline for the exercise of the right referred to in paragraph 1, point (b).

4.  Member States shall ensure that, where the exercise of the right referred to in paragraph 1, point (a) entails a modification of the agenda for the general meeting already communicated to shareholders, the company shall make available a revised agenda in the same manner as the previous agenda in advance of the applicable record date as defined in Article 7(2) or, if no record date applies, sufficiently in advance of the date of the general meeting so as to enable other shareholders to appoint a proxy or, where applicable, to vote by correspondence.

Article 7

Requirements for participation and voting in the general meeting

1.  Member States shall ensure:

2.  Member States shall provide that the rights of a shareholder to participate in a general meeting and to vote in respect of his shares shall be determined with respect to the shares held by that shareholder on a specified date prior to the general meeting (the "record date").

Member States need not apply the first subparagraph to companies that are able to identify the names and addresses of their shareholders from a current register of shareholders on the day of the general meeting.

3.  Each Member State shall ensure that a single record date applies to all companies. However, a Member State may set one record date for companies which have issued bearer shares and another record date for companies which have issued registered shares, provided that a single record date applies to each company which has issued both types of shares. The record date shall not lie more than thirty days before the date of the general meeting to which it applies. In implementing this provision and Article 5(1), each Member State shall ensure that at least eight days elapse between the latest permissible date for the convocation of the general meeting and the record date. In calculating that number of days those two dates shall not be included. In the circumstances described in Article 5(1), third subparagraph, however, a Member State may require that at least six days elapse between the latest permissible date for the second or subsequent convocation of the general meeting and the record date. In calculating that number of days those two dates shall not be included.

4.  Proof of qualification as a shareholder may be made subject only to such requirements as are necessary to ensure the identification of shareholders and only to the extent that they are proportionate to achieving that objective.

Article 8

Participation in the general meeting by electronic means

1.  Member States shall permit companies to offer to their shareholders any form of participation in the general meeting by electronic means, notably any or all of the following forms of participation:

2.  The use of electronic means for the purpose of enabling shareholders to participate in the general meeting may be made subject only to such requirements and constraints as are necessary to ensure the identification of shareholders and the security of the electronic communication, and only to the extent that they are proportionate to achieving those objectives.

This is without prejudice to any legal rules which Member States have adopted or may adopt concerning the decision-making process within the company for the introduction or implementation of any form of participation by electronic means.

Article 9

Right to ask questions

1.  Every shareholder shall have the right to ask questions related to items on the agenda of the general meeting. The company shall answer the questions put to it by shareholders.

2.  The right to ask questions and the obligation to answer are subject to the measures which Member States may take, or allow companies to take, to ensure the identification of shareholders, the good order of general meetings and their preparation and the protection of confidentiality and business interests of companies. Member States may allow companies to provide one overall answer to questions having the same content.

Member States may provide that an answer shall be deemed to be given if the relevant information is available on the company's internet site in a question and answer format.

Article 10

Proxy voting

1.  Every shareholder shall have the right to appoint any other natural or legal person as a proxy holder to attend and vote at a general meeting in his name. The proxy holder shall enjoy the same rights to speak and ask questions in the general meeting as those to which the shareholder thus represented would be entitled.

Apart from the requirement that the proxy holder possess legal capacity, Member States shall abolish any legal rule which restricts, or allows companies to restrict, the eligibility of persons to be appointed as proxy holders.

2.  Member States may limit the appointment of a proxy holder to a single meeting, or to such meetings as may be held during a specified period.

Without prejudice to Article 13(5), Member States may limit the number of persons whom a shareholder may appoint as proxy holders in relation to any one general meeting. However, if a shareholder has shares of a company held in more than one securities account, such limitation shall not prevent the shareholder from appointing a separate proxy holder as regards shares held in each securities account in relation to any one general meeting. This does not affect rules prescribed by the applicable law that prohibit the casting of votes differently in respect of shares held by one and the same shareholder.

3.  Apart from the limitations expressly permitted in paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States shall not restrict or allow companies to restrict the exercise of shareholder rights through proxy holders for any purpose other than to address potential conflicts of interest between the proxy holder and the shareholder, in whose interest the proxy holder is bound to act, and in doing so Member States shall not impose any requirements other than the following:

4.  The proxy holder shall cast votes in accordance with the instructions issued by the appointing shareholder.

Member States may require proxy holders to keep a record of the voting instructions for a defined minimum period and to confirm on request that the voting instructions have been carried out.

5.  A person acting as a proxy holder may hold a proxy from more than one shareholder without limitation as to the number of shareholders so represented. Where a proxy holder holds proxies from several shareholders, the applicable law shall enable him to cast votes for a certain shareholder differently from votes cast for another shareholder.

Article 11

Formalities for proxy holder appointment and notification

1.  Member States shall permit shareholders to appoint a proxy holder by electronic means. Moreover, Member States shall permit companies to accept the notification of the appointment by electronic means, and shall ensure that every company offers to its shareholders at least one effective method of notification by electronic means.

2.  Member States shall ensure that proxy holders may be appointed, and that such appointment be notified to the company, only in writing. Beyond this basic formal requirement, the appointment of a proxy holder, the notification of the appointment to the company and the issuance of voting instructions, if any, to the proxy holder may be made subject only to such formal requirements as are necessary to ensure the identification of the shareholder and of the proxy holder, or to ensure the possibility of verifying the content of voting instructions, respectively, and only to the extent that they are proportionate to achieving those objectives.

3.  The provisions of this Article shall apply mutatis mutandis for the revocation of the appointment of a proxy holder.

Article 12

Voting by correspondence

Member States shall permit companies to offer their shareholders the possibility to vote by correspondence in advance of the general meeting. Voting by correspondence may be made subject only to such requirements and constraints as are necessary to ensure the identification of shareholders and only to the extent that they are proportionate to achieving that objective.

Article 13

Removal of certain impediments to the effective exercise of voting rights

1.  This Article applies where a natural or legal person who is recognised as a shareholder by the applicable law acts in the course of a business on behalf of another natural or legal person (the "client").

2.  Where the applicable law imposes disclosure requirements as a prerequisite for the exercise of voting rights by a shareholder referred to in paragraph 1, such requirements shall not go beyond a list disclosing to the company the identity of each client and the number of shares voted on his behalf.

3.  Where the applicable law imposes formal requirements on the authorisation of a shareholder referred to in paragraph 1 to exercise voting rights, or on voting instructions, such formal requirements shall not go beyond what is necessary to ensure the identification of the client, or the possibility of verifying the content of voting instructions, respectively, and is proportionate to achieving those objectives.

4.  A shareholder referred to in paragraph 1 shall be permitted to cast votes attaching to some of the shares differently from votes attaching to the other shares.

5.  Where the applicable law limits the number of persons whom a shareholder may appoint as proxy holders in accordance with Article 10(2), such limitation shall not prevent a shareholder referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article from granting a proxy to each of his clients or to any third party designated by a client.

Article 14

Voting results

1.  The company shall establish for each resolution at least the number of shares for which votes have been validly cast, the proportion of the share capital represented by those votes, the total number of votes validly cast as well as the number of votes cast in favour of and against each resolution and, where applicable, the number of abstentions.

However, Member States may provide or allow companies to provide that if no shareholder requests a full account of the voting, it shall be sufficient to establish the voting results only to the extent needed to ensure that the required majority is reached for each resolution.

2.  Within a period of time to be determined by the applicable law, which shall not exceed fifteen days after the general meeting, the company shall publish on its internet site the voting results established in accordance with paragraph 1.

3.  This Article is without prejudice to any legal rules that Member States have adopted or may adopt concerning the formalities required in order for a resolution to become valid or the possibility of a subsequent legal challenge to the voting result.

Chapter III

Final provisions

Article 15

Transposition

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [...](11) at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those measures.

Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, Member States which on 1 July 2006 had in force national measures restricting or prohibiting the appointment of a proxy holder in the case of Article 10(3), second subparagraph, point (ii), shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with Article 10(3) as concerns such restriction or prohibition by [...](12)* at the latest.

Member States shall forthwith communicate the number of days specified under Articles 6(3) and 7(3), and any subsequent changes thereof, to the Commission, which shall publish this information in the Official Journal of the European Union.

When Member States adopt the measures referred to in the first paragraph, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.

Article 16

Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 17

Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

(1) Not yet published in OJ. (2) OJ C 318, 23.12.2006, p. 42. (3) Position of the European Parliament of 15 February 2007. (4) OJ C 104 E, 30.4.2004, p. 714. (5) OJ L 184, 6.7.2001, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Directive 2005/1/EC (OJ L 79, 24.3.2005, p. 9). (6) OJ L 390, 31.12.2004, p. 38. (7) OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p. 1. (8) OJ L 375, 31.12.1985, p. 3. Directive as last amended by Directive 2005/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. (9) OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Directive 2006/31/EC (OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p. 60). (10) OJ L 142, 30.4.2004, p. 12. (11) * Two years following the entry into force of this Directive. (12) ** Five years following the entry into force of this Directive.

European Parliament resolution on budget aid for developing countries (2006/2079(INI))

P6_TA(2007)0043 A6-0005/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 177 and Article 180 of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to the UN Millennium Declaration of 18 September 2000, which sets out the Millennium Development Goals as objectives established jointly by the international community for the elimination of poverty,

–   having regard to the Programme of Action of the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 1994,

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled "Community support for economic reform programmes and structural adjustment: review and prospects" (COM(2000)0058),

–   having regard to the Guide to the Programming and Implementation of Budget Support for Third Countries produced by the EuropeAid Co-operation Office (AIDCO) and the Directorates-General for Development (DEV) and External Relations (RELEX), of April 2003,

–   having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) and the European Community signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000(1) (the Cotonou Partnership Agreement),

–   having regard to the Joint Evaluation of General Budget Support, Synthesis Report, of May 2006, produced by the International Development Department of the University of Birmingham and associates,

–   having regard to the Court of Auditors' Special Report No 5/2001 on counterpart funds from structural adjustment support earmarked for budget aid (seventh and eighth EDFs), together with the Commission's replies(2),

–   having regard to the Court of Auditors' Special Report No 2/2005 concerning EDF budget aid to ACP countries: the Commission's management of the public finance reform aspect, together with the Commission's replies(3),

–   having regard to the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled "Cooperation with ACP countries involved in armed conflicts" (COM(1999)0240),

–   having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2006 on aid effectiveness and corruption in developing countries(4),

–   having regard to the Note of the Policy Department of the Directorate-General for External Policies of the European Parliament, on the advantages and disadvantages of budget support as a modality for the delivery of aid, of June 2004,

–   having regard to the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) high level meeting held in Paris in March 2005,

–   having regard to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, dated 2 March, 2005,

–   having regard to Performance Measurement Framework of the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Programme (PEFA) of June 2005,

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0005/2007),

A.   whereas there are ongoing discussions on how to obtain the most effective results from development funds in order to benefit people in recipient countries,

B.   whereas it must be stated that efforts over the course of several decades to improve the day-to-day living conditions of people in developing countries have failed in many parts of the world, for a variety of complex reasons and circumstances, some of which can clearly be identified as bad governance, misuse of funds and corruption,

C.   whereas the need to engage in development cooperation requires continuous justification not only vis-à-vis the general public but also in the context of interaction with other stakeholders in the field of public expenditure,

D.   whereas budget support is acknowledged as an essential instrument of European Community development cooperation and whereas approximately one fifth of EDF aid is in the form of untargeted budget support,

E.   whereas the importance of providing predictable government-to-government support using recipient countries' own systems, as far as possible, was recognised by the DAC high level meeting held in Paris in March 2005,

F.   whereas budget support allows for closer donor coordination,

G.   whereas effective recipient state structures, both in terms of a functioning democracy respecting fundamental freedoms, human rights and political pluralism and in terms of budgetary processes, expenditure competency and service provision that are amenable to scrutiny, are crucial to the effectiveness of budget support,

H.   whereas budget support can empower the recipient to determine its development process,

I.   whereas the budget support process takes place within a framework of partnership, in terms of priority setting and assessment, through continuous donor-recipient policy dialogue,

J.   whereas budget support should also encourage the strengthening of democratic processes, affording policy space to civil society, especially through involvement in the shaping of a poverty reduction and development strategy, and promoting parliamentary scrutiny of development policy and budget spending,

K.   whereas budget support can be either general budget support, which covers the overall macro-economic and budget framework, or sectoral budget support,

L.   whereas the key considerations in deciding the allocation of budget support funding are: the 'external financing gap', the degree of poverty, good governance, past performance, development commitment and a realistic assessment of possible results, in terms of poverty reduction, growth and institutional reform,

M.   whereas funds provided as general budget support are fully fungible, as transfers are made directly into the treasury account of a country, which effectively means that control over, ownership of and accountability with regard to the utilisation of those funds rests with the recipient,

N.   whereas Articles 61(2) and 67 of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement clearly determine the conditions governing the eligibility of a recipient country for budget support, expressly stating the need for standards regarding public expenditure management, macro-economic and sectoral policies and public procurement and, furthermore, requiring the donor and recipient to ensure that adjustment is economically viable and socially and politically workable,

O.   whereas a functioning parliamentary democracy respecting fundamental freedoms and human rights, including political pluralism, and an effective public financial management system are prerequisites for budget support, and should be assessed in terms of the extent to which the recipient country is characterised by good governance, scrutiny by a democratically elected parliament, the rule of law, government accountability, competence, well-defined macro-economic, developmental and sectoral policies and the degree of openness and transparency of its public procurement,

P.   whereas risk should be measured in terms of the ability of the state bodies concerned to administer and implement funds, good governance, commitment to development principles, the incidence of corruption, democracy and human rights,

Q.   whereas effective public financial management and budgetary systems aimed at creating a stable macro-economic climate are essential preconditions for development,

R.   whereas a number of budget support partner countries, especially in the ACP states, have extremely poor public financial management systems,

S.   whereas the donor-recipient partnership needs to ensure an effective joint analysis of the results of development policy implementation and reforms which are crucial to the assessment of the viability of budget support,

1.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use budget support only if the net benefits of such a mechanism can be demonstrated in the light of clearly objectifiable criteria, and only after a full assessment of the risks involved;

2.  Stresses that budget support as an aid modality can be successful only if both partners fully assume their responsibilities in a true spirit of partnership and ownership;

3.  Calls for budget support to focus, as far as possible, on poverty reduction development priorities, for those priorities to be given a central role in the donor-recipient policy dialogue and for parliamentary scrutiny to be ensured in respect of both the donor and the recipient;

4.  Stresses the importance of capacity-building by recipient governments, which have to assume a stronger leadership role in development assistance coordination;

5.  Stresses the importance of creating a culture of accountability which fully involves parliaments and the supreme audit institutions; recognises that budget support must go hand in hand with the strengthening of civil society;

6.  Regards the equitable application of clear, explicit and realistic conditions, agreed upon by all parties and attached to the budget support programme, as essential to the instrument in question and necessary in order to counteract unpredictable volatility in the granting of aid;

7.  Commends the eligibility criteria for the use of budget support with ACP states, as enshrined in Articles 61(2) and 67 of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement;

8.  Is concerned about the decision to use budget support in Malawi, where there were considerable known risks, and Kenya, in regard to which all Member States have suspended budget support, thus calling into question the Commission's ability to use this instrument effectively;

9.  Is concerned by the findings of the Court of Auditors that, in some cases, the Commission's reasons for granting budget support to countries with poor public financial management systems were insufficient, and that Articles 61(2) and 67 of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement were often given a broad and subjective interpretation;

10.  Is alarmed that the Court of Auditors has found inadequacies in the Commission's overall coherence of the budget support instrument and in the controls and monitoring and support for the recipient countries' own budgetary scrutiny mechanisms, namely the parliaments and supreme audit institutions of the countries concerned, and that technical assistance is being underused; all of these elements being indispensable to the instrument;

11.  Recognises that there can only be one macro-economic reform programme in any given country, which is usually directed by the international financial institutions, but in relation to which the Commission and Member States should seek to play an active role in an effort to influence policy;

12.  Recalls that macro-economic reforms can have a sustainable effect only when they fully embrace the objectives of human and social development;

13.  Believes that sectoral budget support or sector-wide approaches should be considered as privileged instruments for intervention in the health and education sectors;

14.  Reaffirms that 20% of total annual commitments should be allocated to activities in the sectors of basic and secondary education and basic health (including sexual and reproductive health);

15.  Calls on the Commission to adopt and apply the new international performance measurement framework in order to assess a country's public financial management, as established by PEFA;

16.  Calls on the Commission to react coherently and even-handedly when countries cease to respect the principles of democracy and human rights;

17.  Calls on the Commission to assess the prevalence and risks posed by corruption, in line with Articles 9(3) and 97 of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement;

18.  Calls upon the Commission to seek coherence in policy and decision-making within donor budget support partnerships and demands that donor funds be administered effectively so as to eliminate the possibility of unpredictable volatility in the granting of aid, and considers that the Commission is best placed to facilitate EU donor coordination;

19.  Considers it crucial that the disbursement of funds and the evaluation process be aligned with the recipients' own development strategy, budget and evaluation processes;

20.  Calls on the Commission to maintain its strong focus on equity and poverty reduction, concentrating on the most marginalised and poor amongst society;

21.  Commends the use of variable tranches, which offer results-based incentives, but notes that any variance of disbursement should be predictable, as far as possible, so as not to impact negatively on budgetary planning;

22.  Is concerned about the difficulty inherent in assessing the achievement of performance indicators and especially poverty impact results, and calls on the Commission to support capacity development in statistics, data collection, quality assessment and analysis;

23.  Calls on the Commission to verify at regular intervals, in collaboration with all stakeholders, that the economic policies of the recipient countries are in accordance with the objectives and principles of the development assistance and that its conditions are being fulfilled;

24.  Calls on the Commission, Member States and the beneficiary countries to provide regular information to the general public in this sector, in order to make the impact of budget aid visible to the European taxpayer and to raise awareness of the need for development cooperation in general and the effects of budget support in particular, to counter general allegations of misuse of funds and to provide information on the basic requirements for the use of budget support and also on the cases where such support has proven ineffective; urges the Commission to improve the visibility of the EU in development aid and to document and demonstrate the progress made by beneficiary third countries in administering budget aid independently;

25.  Calls on the Commission to assess at regular intervals the effectiveness of budget aid in combating poverty from the point of view of cost-effectiveness, and to show progress made by the third-country beneficiaries in independently administering the budget aid; in doing so, it should distinguish between general and sector-specific budget aid, so as to achieve greater clarity with regard to the effectiveness of the various aid instruments in reducing poverty; the administrative costs of budget and project aid must also be evaluated; the aim should be to be in a position to give a reasoned account of when each instrument should be used;

26.  Calls on the Commission to tackle the shortcomings in control and supervision by introducing an external control for budget aid (for example via the Court of Auditors); the Commission should be encouraged to take the initiative of setting up a joint supervisory institution together with the other large financial donors;

27.  Insists that, in order to support the beneficiary countries" own budgetary control mechanisms, the parliament of any given beneficiary country should participate in adopting the budget, and the budget law should be published; insists further that budget aid should be evaluated annually by the parliament in terms of the progress achieved;

28.  Calls on the Commission to state how budget aid can be limited in time; notes that the ultimate aim of budget support must be to build up the self-sufficiency of the beneficiary country, so the Commission should state over what (reasonable) timescale this can be achieved;

29.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

(1) OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3. Agreement as amended by the Agreement amending the Partnership agreement of 25 June 2005 (OJ L 287, 28.10.2005, p. 4). (2) OJ C 257, 14.9.2001, p. 1. (3) OJ C 249, 7.10.2005, p. 1. (4) OJ C 293 E, 2.12.2006, p. 316.

European Parliament resolution on the implementation of the EU action plan against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (2006/2225(INI))

P6_TA(2007)0044 A6-0015/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the communication from the Commission entitled "Community action plan for the eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing" (COM(2002)0180) and the Council Conclusions of 11 June 2002 thereon,

–   having regard to its resolution of 20 November 2002 on the Community action plan for the eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing(1),

–   having regard to the Commission's three-yearly communications on monitoring the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and Parliament's corresponding resolutions on that subject,

–   having regard to the Commission's annual communications and Parliament's respective resolutions on conduct seriously infringing the rules of the CFP,

–   having regard to the FAO international plan of action on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and the technical documents adopted subsequently by the FAO,

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 of 26 April 2005 establishing a Community Fisheries Control Agency(2), and in particular Article 3, point (h) thereof,

–   having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2001 on the role of flags of convenience in the fisheries sector(3),

–   having regard to the Green Paper entitled 'Towards a future maritime policy for the Union: a European vision for the oceans and seas' (COM(2006)0275),

–   having regard to its resolution of 7 September 2006 on launching a debate on a Community approach towards eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products(4),

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0015/2007),

A.   whereas IUU fishing is a major problem around the world, causing considerable environmental degradation, contributing to the depletion of commercial and non-commercial fish stocks and other species and resulting in difficulties for communities dependent on fishing for their livelihoods in both developing and developed countries,

B.   whereas the fight against IUU fishing has been hindered by factors such as the use of flags of convenience, transshipments on the high seas, lack of adequate port control and scant cooperation between control authorities,

C.   whereas, according to the FAO's definition of IUU fishing, "illegal fishing" refers to activities conducted by vessels in contravention of the laws and regulations of states belonging to a regional fisheries management organisation (RFMO), "unreported fishing" refers to activities which have been misreported or have not been reported to the competent national authority or the relevant RFMO, and "unregulated fishing" refers to activities carried out by vessels without nationality or under the flag of a state which does not belong to a particular RFMO, in contravention of the conservation and management measures of that organisation,

D.   whereas, even though IUU fishing may occur in any segment of the fleet, its greatest impact can be seen in the offshore fishing segment, which by preference operates in international waters and on the continental shelf of developing countries with scant means of control, which means that the European Union's action must focus on those areas and on that segment of the fleet,

E.   whereas vessels engaging in IUU fishing help to weaken the social conditions and living and working conditions of crews,

F.   whereas IUU fishing and marketing activities linked thereto also constitute unfair competition for those fishers and commercial players who abide by the rules laid down in law, including legislation in the EU, its Member States and other countries and the management measures agreed by RFMOs,

G.   whereas the European Union and its Member States must increase their commitment in the fight against all forms of illegal fishing, but it is also necessary to distinguish between infringements by Community vessels of Community rules and IUU fishing as interpreted at international level, and bearing in mind that activities carried out within the framework of the CFP are indeed regulated, which means that the fight against those two activities will in the majority of cases involve different procedures,

H.   whereas the Commission itself recognises the difficulty of differentiating between licit and illicit catches, particularly in certain cases such as when the fish landed is frozen, or where there are commercial networks with third countries and the fish has been processed before it reaches the European market,

I.   whereas RFMOs are the best means of combating IUU fishing at international level and the Community's participation in them enables it to establish joint actions and speak with one voice in the competent international organisations,

J.   whereas the existence of an effective and coherent control system is a key component for a sustainable resource conservation and management policy, and involves not simply introducing more restrictive measures but also applying existing measures better and more equitably,

K.   mindful of the importance of the exchange of information and international cooperation in combating IUU fishing,

L.   whereas the profits resulting from IUU fishing may in some cases be helping to finance activities of organised criminal networks,

1.  Reiterates its commitment to combating IUU fishing in all its forms, as expressed in its resolution of 20 November 2002, referred to above;

2.  Welcomes the progress that has been made at the international level and by the EU in combating IUU fishing, but considers that the phenomenon continues to escalate and, consequently, that further efforts are needed;

3.  Considers that the extent of IUU fishing, the diversity of factors contributing to it and the wide range of legal, logistical and financial tools necessary to combat it are such as to require cooperation at all levels, including the various Directorates-General of the Commission (especially, but not limited to, the Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, Trade, Development and Health and Consumer Protection DGs), the Council, the individual Member States and the international community; takes the view, to that end, that the Green Paper on a new maritime policy for the Union could serve as a framework for cooperation on the basis of which the fight against IUU fishing might be approached more effectively;

4.  Considers that the importance of the EU in the world, in its various roles as a major fishing power and as the world's largest market for fish, obliges it to be at the forefront of the fight against IUU fishing;

5.  Notes that the EU is among the world's wealthiest and most technologically advanced entities and that it bases itself on the rule of law, all of which behoves the EU to broaden and intensify its efforts to combat IUU fishing;

6.  Considers that the EU can only act credibly on the world scene if it has already taken effective action to halt its own involvement in IUU fishing, both in EU waters and by EU vessels or interests outside the EU;

7.  Urges the Commission to help developing countries, above all those with which the Community has fishing agreements, to comply fully with the commitments of the abovementioned international plan of action designed to prevent illegal fishing, helping to strengthen the scant means available to them by including specific actions in the new partnership agreements;

8.  Reiterates its conviction that a crucial and obvious first step for the European Union to take is, first, to fully implement the existing provisions of the CFP and other relevant Community legislation in an effective, fair and rigorous manner, in order to reduce unreported and illegal fishing by Community vessels and in Community waters and, second, to prevent the landing and marketing of products from illegally caught fish from outside the EU; notes that these duties fall primarily on the governments of the Member States, in application of Community law and as port states;

9.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to strengthen deterrence mechanisms (surveillance, control, sanctions, etc.) and to propose measures that will make it possible to prevent infringements and improve the application of existing rules;

10.  Notes that poor traceability of fish leads to confusion over its origin, making it difficult or impossible to distinguish between legally caught fish and illegally caught fish;

11.  Considers it necessary to improve assistance and cooperation among the Member States in order to strengthen controls and surveillance and to promote commercial regulation measures that will make it possible to identify the origin of catches landed;

12.  Considers it necessary to intensify port state control of landings and transhipments of frozen fish from third countries and to improve cooperation between the Member States and those countries;

13.  Recalls its resolution of 7 September 2006 on eco-labelling, referred to above, and reiterates its belief that the improvements in the traceability of fish, from the net to the plate, that would be required by eco-labelling schemes would be of considerable help in identifying IUU fish and keeping it off the EU market; calls on the Commission to present its proposal on eco-labelling by June 2007;

14.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to redouble their efforts to implement the 15 actions included in the EU action plan on IUU fishing as agreed in 2002, and in particular to:

15.  Welcomes the inclusion in the Commission's work programme for 2007 of a package on IUU fishing, including a communication from the Commission and a proposal for a Council regulation on stepping up the fight against IUU fishing; welcomes the revival of the Commission's inter-service consultation group, which was originally set up in 2002;

16.  Calls on the Community Fisheries Control Agency to include the fight against illegal fishing and coordination of Member States' activity in this field among its priorities as part of its annual work programme;

17.  Calls on all those interested in eliminating IUU fishing, including all EU institutions, the governments of the Member States, the various segments of the fishing, processing and retail industry, NGOs and other concerned parties to present their proposals on what the EU should do during the discussion to be launched by the Commission with its upcoming communication on IUU fishing;

18.  Considers that the Commission should include the following actions in its proposal to be adopted in EU law:

19.  Welcomes the establishment of the new control agency and is confident that the agency will play an important role in the fight against IUU fishing; calls upon the Commission to consider the idea of the establishment of an EU coastguard;

20.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to prevent fishing in Community waters and entry to Community ports by vessels which are involved in IUU fishing in accordance with the rules in force and to prohibit the importing of fish from those vessels; calls, likewise, on the Member States not to allow this type of vessel to be flagged under their flag, and to invite importers, transporters and other sectors concerned not to tranship or deal with fish caught by those vessels;

21.  Urges the Commission to ensure that any natural or legal persons guilty of IUU fishing in accordance with the rules in force do not receive any type of aid or subsidy from Community funds for any branch of their activities, and to ask the Member States to take similar action with regard to their respective national aid;

22.  Calls on the Commission to carry out and present a study on tariffs and rules of origin, containing an examination of the ways in which these tools may be used in order to encourage third countries to ensure that their vessels abide by relevant international management measures;

23.  Calls on the Commission to carry out and submit a study on compliance with Community labour, health and safety legislation and on respect for the social rights of workers on that type of vessel, and on their living and working conditions on board;

24.  Calls on the Commission to use its considerable influence in RFMOs to encourage them to establish lists of vessels that are authorised to fish (white lists) and of vessels that have been caught fishing illegally (black lists); such lists must be drawn up in a transparent and coherent manner in accordance with clear criteria; also calls on the Commission to encourage RFMOs to identify countries which do not control the activities of vessels flying their flag and to use those lists as tools to allow the acceptance or rejection of fish;

25.  Urges the Commission to continue giving maximum priority to cooperation with RFMOs such as the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources which, with their initiatives designed to combat illegal fishing, have proved to be the most suitable instruments for ensuring good governance on the high seas;

26.  Urges the Commission and the Council to strengthen the resources allocated to the fight against corruption and organised crime at all levels;

27.  Is convinced that the keys to reducing and eliminating IUU fishing are full traceability all along the chain of custody, transparency of decisions, cooperation within the EU and the wider international community and, most importantly, a demonstration of political will by all parties; reiterates that, unless much more is done, fish stocks will continue to be depleted and fishing communities in the EU and elsewhere will suffer even greater hardship;

28.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Committee on Fisheries of the FAO and the secretariats of the RFMOs to which the EU belongs.

(1) OJ C 25 E, 29.1.2004, p. 179. (2) OJ L 128, 21.5.2005, p. 1. (3) OJ C 177 E, 25.7.2002, p. 324. (4) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0347. (5) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (OJ L 128, 21.5.2005, p. 1). (6) OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1759/2006 (OJ L 335, 1.12.2006, p. 3). (7) OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 206. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 1).

European Parliament resolution on the draft Commission decisions establishing Country Strategy Papers and Indicative Programmes for Malaysia, Brazil and Pakistan

P6_TA(2007)0045 B6-0067/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation,(1)

–   having regard to the draft Commission decisions establishing Country Strategy Papers and Indicative Programmes for Malaysia, Brazil and Pakistan (CMT-2007-0001, CMT-2006-3525 and CMT-2006-3021),

–   having regard to the opinions delivered on 25 January 2007 by the committee referred to in Article 35(1) of the above regulation (hereinafter referred to as "the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) management committee"),

–   having regard to Article 8 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission,(2)

–   having regard to Rule 81 of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas, on 25 January 2007, the DCI management committee voted in favour of the draft Commission decisions establishing Country Strategy Papers and Indicative Programmes for Malaysia, Brazil and Pakistan (CMT-2007-0001, CMT-2006-3525, CMT-2006-3021),

B.   whereas, pursuant to Article 7(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC and point 1 of the Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission on procedures for implementing Council Decision 1999/468/EC,(3) the European Parliament received the draft implementing measures submitted to the DCI management committee and the results of voting,

C.   whereas Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 stipulates that "the primary and overarching objective of cooperation under this Regulation shall be the eradication of poverty in partner countries and regions in the context of sustainable development",

D.   whereas Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 stipulates that "measures referred to in Article 1(1)[(4)] shall be designed so as to fulfil the criteria for Official Development Assistance (ODA) established by the [Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] (OECD/DAC)",

E.   whereas, in its 'Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System' (DCD/DAC(2002)21), the OECD/DAC defines ODA as financial flows to countries on the DAC list of ODA recipients for which, inter alia, "each transaction is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective",

F.   whereas paragraphs 3 and 8 of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 stipulate respectively that "strategy papers shall, in principle, be based on a dialogue with the partner country or region which involves civil society and regional and local authorities" and that "the Commission and the Member States shall consult each other, as well as other donors and development actors including representatives of civil society and regional and local authorities, at an early stage of the programming process in order to promote complementarity among their cooperation activities",

1.  Takes the view that in most draft Strategy Papers and draft Indicative Programmes the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are not clearly presented as a main priority; considers that this is not in compliance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 as the pursuit of the MDGs is established there as one of the overarching principles of cooperation under the DCI;

Malaysia

2.  Takes the view that, in its draft Strategy Paper and draft National Indicative Programme 2007-2010 for Malaysia, the Commission exceeds its implementing powers laid down in the basic act by selecting as the only focal sector (for which 100% of the funds are earmarked) "EU-Malaysia Policy Dialogue Facility on Trade and Investment", "the overall objective of which is to facilitate trade and investment relations between the EU and Malaysia" and by including two specific objectives for the actions, namely "to increase EU market knowledge for the Malaysian business community and vice versa" and "to raise ... EU visibility in Malaysia through joint initiatives"; considers that these objectives are not in compliance with Article 2(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, in that the primary objective of the Strategy Paper is not the eradication of poverty and in that the stated objectives do not fulfil the criteria for ODA established by the OECD/DAC;

Brazil

3.  Takes the view that in its draft Strategy Paper and draft National Indicative Programme 2007-2010 for Brazil the Commission exceeds its implementing powers laid down in the basic act by earmarking 70% of the National Indicative Programme for Priority I "Enhancing Bilateral Relations", which has as specific objectives: "i) [to] improve the sectoral dialogues between the EU and Brazil on themes of mutual interest; ii) [to] expand cooperation and exchanges between relevant European and Brazilian institutions and civil society organisations; iii) [to] strengthen links between EU and Brazilian academia; iv) [to] enhance mutual awareness between EU and Brazilian institutions and societies", and under which a facility "to promote and support sectoral dialogues on themes of common interest" will be financed, as well as the establishment of a European Studies Institute, with the main purpose of "raising the EU's profile" and "strengthening higher education links"; considers that these objectives are not in compliance with Article 2(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, in that the primary objective of the Strategy Paper is not the eradication of poverty and in that the stated objectives do not fulfil the criteria for ODA established by the OECD/DAC;

Pakistan

4.  Takes the view that in its draft Strategy Paper and draft National Indicative Programme 2007-2010 for Pakistan the Commission exceeds its implementing powers laid down in the basic act by including in Non-focal area 3 of the National Indicative Programme "Anti-money laundering"(5) activities with the overall objective of "contributing to the efforts of the Pakistani authorities to implement UNSCR 1373";(6) considers that this objective is not in compliance with Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 in that it does not fulfil the criteria for ODA established by the OECD/DAC;

o
o   o

5.  Calls on the Commission to withdraw or amend its draft decisions establishing Country Strategy Papers and Indicative Programmes for Malaysia, Brazil and Pakistan, and to submit to the DCI management committee new draft decisions fully respecting the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006;

6.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, and the parliaments and governments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 378, 27.12.2006, p. 41. (2) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23. Decision as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC (OJ L 200, 22.7.2006, p. 11). (3) OJ L 256,10.10.2000, p. 19. (4) Article 1(1): "The Community shall finance measures aimed at supporting cooperation with developing countries, territories and regions (...)." (5) In the Country Strategy Paper's table of contents, this area is referred to as "Counter-terrorism and Security". (6) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373(2001), adopted on 28 September 2001, after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in the USA, imposes wide-ranging obligations on all States to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, to establish adequate penalties for terrorist offences, to deny safe haven to terrorists and to cooperate with other States in criminal proceedings or investigations relating to terrorist acts.

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on the facilitation of issuance of short-stay visas (8780/2006 - COM(2006)0188 – C6-0169/2006 – 2006/0062(CNS))

P6_TA(2007)0046 A6-0029/2007

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2006)0188)(1),

–   having regard to Article 62(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and Article 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence, of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0169/2006),

–   having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0029/2007),

1.  Approves the conclusion of the Agreement;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Russian Federation.

(1) Not yet published in OJ.

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on readmission (8779/2006 - COM(2006)0191 – C6-0168/2006 – 2006/0064(CNS))

P6_TA(2007)0047 A6-0028/2007

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2006)0191)(1),

–   having regard to Articles 63(3)(b) and 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence, of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0168/2006),

–   having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0028/2007),

1.  Approves the conclusion of the Agreement;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Russian Federation.

(1) Not yet published in OJ.

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the Employment Policies of the Member States (COM(2006)0815 – C6-0036/2007 – 2006/0271(CNS))

P6_TA(2007)0048 A6-0008/2007

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0815)(1),

–   having regard to Article 128(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0036/2007),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0008/2007),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;

3.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

5.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendments by Parliament Amendment 1 Recital 3 a (new) (3a) The European Parliament should be given the necessary time, and in any event no less than five months, to fulfil its consultative role, as defined in Article 128(2) of the Treaty, during the full revision of the Employment Guidelines, which is scheduled to take place in 2008.

(1) Not yet published in the OJ.

European Parliament resolution on the reform of the common organisation of the market in wine (2006/2109(INI))

P6_TA(2007)0049 A6-0016/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 22 June 2006: "Towards a sustainable European Wine Sector" (COM(2006)0319),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1),

–   having regard to its position of 14 April 1999 on the proposal for a Council Regulation fixing the guide prices for wine for the 1999/2000 wine year(2), its positions of 11 February 1999(3) and 6 May 1999(4) on the common organisation of the market in wine within the framework of Agenda 2000, and its positions of 11 December 2001(5) and 15 November 2005(6) on amending Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999,

–   having regard to the Commission's working documents on "Wine – Common Market Organisation" and "Wine: Economy of the Sector" of February 2006(7),

–   having regard to the conclusions of the seminar "Challenges and Opportunities for European Wines" organised by the Commission on 16 February 2006(8),

–   having regard to the external studies drawn up on behalf of the Commission(9) and the European Parliament,

–   having regard to the opinions and discussions at the public hearing organised by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 12 July 2006 on a sustainable European wine sector,

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinions of the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Regional Development (A6-0016/2007),

A.   whereas wine-growing is a key element of the European multifunctional agricultural model, is practised in more than 1,6 million holdings covering 3,4 million hectares and accounts for 5,4 % of the value of EU agricultural production, but receives only 2,5 % of European Agricultural Guarantee Fund spending; whereas, in principle, wine-growing has a positive effect on the environment, mainly by protecting soil from erosion, but also because it generally involves the extensive use of natural resources,

B.   whereas European wine-growing is an important export sector accounting for 60% of world production,

C.   whereas the vitality of this sector in terms of exports is based on a globally recognised tradition of quality,

D.   whereas the EU is the world's first producer, first consumer and first exporter of wine,

E.   whereas important developments in the common agricultural policy (CAP) and in international agreements concluded and negotiations conducted by the EU, chiefly within the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which have taken place since the last radical reform of the common market organisation (CMO) in wine based on Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, the situation of the market in this sector and experience in applying that regulation all mean that an adjustment to the new circumstances is necessary, and no further concessions can be asked of the EU,

F.   whereas the reform of the wine sector must ensure a secure future for the CMO in wine and stability for wine-growers, and it is necessary to ensure that the reform is not called into question once more during the Doha round negotiations, in particular as regards internal support,

G.   whereas the EU wine sector demands a firm political assertion by the EU in order to promote the place of wines and the wine sector in our society by the formulation through the CMO in this sector of a genuine European wine policy,

H.   whereas the Commission must ensure that the reform of the sector focuses on developing a genuine Community wine policy that will help to improve production, processing and above all marketing structures in the EU, developing new and expanding markets and consolidating traditional ones,

I.   whereas the abovementioned Commission Communication recognises the need for a specific CMO in wine and proposes a profound reform of the present CMO,

J.   whereas, on the basis of the abovementioned Commission Communication and the accompanying studies and documents, an integrated proposal for the reform of the CMO in wine may be drawn up which will make use of elements contained in the alternative scenarios studied by the Commission, without, however, being identical to any one of these scenarios, and that therefore the option of a thorough reform of the CMO in wine with fundamental changes to the measures proposed should be viewed as suitable to achieve the objectives sought,

K.   whereas the main objective of the reform of the wine sector should be to make the European wine sector more dynamic and competitive without losing its market share in international markets, with due regard to the interests of European wine producers and consumers, the European wine-growing tradition and the quality and authenticity of European wines,

L.   whereas market stabilisation cannot be achieved through controlling quantities and political interference in production,

M.   whereas the situation in the wine sector calls for fair and ambitious reform, which must ensure, by radical adjustment of the CMO in wine, that European wine-growing has a real future, without damaging production potential,

N.   whereas this ambitious reform must provide sufficient resources that will cover both the financing of the adjustments required for the modernisation of the CMO in wine and any possible social consequences,

O.   bearing in mind that the scenario of a "profound reform" of the CMO in wine chosen by the Commission is open to criticism, in particular on the following grounds:

P.   whereas, in response to the aggressive commercial policy of the "New World", the CMO in wine needs to evolve in order to foster greater competitiveness in the Community wine sector and help the sector to adjust to changes in the world market without becoming a "safety valve" for the world market;

Q.   whereas the reform of the CMO in the European wine sector is a unique opportunity to rebuild the competitiveness of that sector within an increasingly competitive international context;

R.   whereas the review of the CMO in wine must seek to stabilise wine-growing regions and the sector as a whole, to regulate supply and demand in the most effective and integrated manner in line with the European wine-growing tradition and the quality and authenticity of European wines, convince consumers in Europe and elsewhere of the quality advantage of European wines and show that this is achieved by integrated and transparent Community legislation which has taken into account cultural considerations;

S.   whereas the Community wine sector has a number of specific features in terms of growing methods and production and marketing structures which set it apart from other agricultural sectors; whereas the decoupled single payments system should therefore not be applied in this sector;

T.   whereas only systematic information and promotion measures can make the wine sector more competitive, so as to be able to regain market share within the Community and conquer other markets in emerging countries; whereas an ad hoc promotion fund managed by professional and interprofessional organisations, associations for the protection of individual products or public regional development agencies should be set up to provide funding for such promotional activities;

General principles of the reform

1.  Considers it indispensable to promote a reform of the CMO in wine based on the following essential principles:

2.  Emphasises that the reform must also take into account:

Deregulation of the CMO in wine – single Community policy

3.  Believes that the reform of the CMO in wine should set objectives and make policies, market balance measures, structural interventions and rules governing the labelling and classification of wines more consistent by defining CMO in wine objectives and the policies that may help achieve them; considers that this overall consistency must, however, be based on the principle of subsidiarity so as to respect national and regional particularities and signal that the EU will endeavour, through coordinated policies, to conquer markets and win the confidence of consumers;

4.  Considers that the transfer of funds from the first to the second pillar of the CAP which implies co-funding through the agricultural development programmes is illogical and should be rejected in favour of allowing the national financial frameworks to be provided with financial resources and ensuring a viable development for the sector through the national financial framework measures notified by the Commission;

5.  Recalls that the distribution of Community funds in other agricultural sectors reformed within the framework of the new CAP by creating "national envelopes" took place by adopting an approach based on the full or partial decoupling of Community aid; stresses that the new CMO in wine must be based on the implementation of uniform measures, common to all Member States, and on measures within the scope of subsidiarity that make it possible to take account of the sector's specific needs in all Member States and production regions; adds that in each Member State the sector (production, trade, inter-trade bodies, production regions, etc.), in cooperation with the regional and national administration, should set out, by means of a series of programmes, how to achieve the aim of adapting production to the market by means of one or more of the measures among those defined in the context of the national envelopes; considers that the measures coming within the scope of subsidiarity must be defined and supervised at European level, to prevent distortions of competition, and must be entirely financed by the Community budget;

Reform in two phases (2008-2011 and 2012-2015)

6.  Takes the view that if it is to attain its objectives, the reform must be phased in two stages: in the first phase (2008-2011) the objective must be to balance, reorganise and increase the transparency of the market, strengthen productive bodies and wine-growing regions, by gradually adopting measures – which will be essentially of a uniform Community nature – and prepare the European wine sector for a more aggressive opening of the markets, gradually moving the resources recovered from distillation over to support for competitiveness and development;

7.  Points out that, in view of the probable scale of the consequences of the reform, its complexity and the need for a gradual approach in its implementation, a mid-term review, accompanied by an intermediate phase, following the first phase, is essential, to assess the first impact and perhaps readjust all the resources already laid out or not yet expended taking account of the original aims;

8.  Stresses that, because the present situation calls for immediate measures to resolve the problems of the European wine-growing sector, the policies designed to support the reform – either with the current Community budget or, where necessary, with an increase therein – should be implemented from the outset, to an increasing extent in the case of some, such as the promotion of marketing and improving quality, but to a decreasing extent in the case of others, such as market intervention mechanisms;

Profound reform of the CMO in wine – compatibility with the new CAP

9.  Emphasises that, in principle, wine-growing has a positive effect on the environment, mainly by protecting soil from erosion, but also because it generally involves the extensive use of natural resources; considers that, for these reasons, and in order to bring the regime in line with the spirit of the new CAP, environmentally friendly basic agricultural cultivation practices can be supported and funded from the CMO in wine budget at Community level;

Controls on production to monitor quality, environmental impact and market equilibrium

10.  Points out that laying down a framework for the method of producing table wines will also help clarify their terms of marketing and differentiate them from wines with geographical indications which are subject to much stricter conditions of production and are protected at local and regional level;

11.  Considers indispensable the compulsory compliance of wine-growers with agricultural cultivation practices and environmental, plant health and other standards so as to contribute to environmental protection, controls on primary production, limiting potential yield, combating surpluses and improving the quality of wines, thereby reducing the volumes which are distilled;

Distillation – mechanism for crisis management and market stabilisation, environmental protection and quality enhancement

12.  Stresses that the Commission's proposals to maintain the distillation or withdrawal of by-products without funding do not make sense, since distillation concerns wine producers, but is carried out by distillers, which in effect makes the measure inoperative; stresses also that the Commission proposal for the controlled withdrawal of wine by-products will create serious environmental problems in major wine-producing regions; notes that the proposal for abolishing dual-purpose distillation will lead to the vinification of large volumes, thereby significantly disrupting the regional and European market and creating problems within regions; points out that, as the Commission proposal suggests, a failure to absorb existing surpluses will create shock waves which will significantly affect the market and wine-growers" incomes;

13.  Emphasises that distillation of wine was originally introduced as an urgency measure only, but has become the most costly and disputable part of the CMO in wine; therefore distillation schemes should be phased out over a reasonable transition period which allows wine producers to consolidate or move towards sustainable production methods and quality wine production; points out that, during this transition period, wine producers having taken advantage of distillation should be enabled to establish themselves on quality markets, using grubbing-up schemes, voluntary supply management and rural development measures for better marketing of the quality wines and diversification;

14.  Is opposed to the immediate abolition of the distillation mechanism and other market support measures because, although there is obviously room for improvement in the planning and use of such measures, it does not seem appropriate to abolish them without a transitional period in order to take advantage of the benefits offered by some of those measures; stresses that, during the transitional period, there should be a gradual reduction in the amounts allocated to market intervention mechanisms at the same time as including measures designed to improve quality, to promote and to market European wines;

15.  Takes the view that aid for the distillation of wine by-products should be continued in order to maintain the quality of European wines and obviate any damage to the environment caused by the withdrawal of such products; believes, furthermore, that continued support should be provided for potable alcohol distillation, given that this is the only form of distillation for which there is a genuine market outlet;

16.  Considers that the distillation of by-products must be reviewed as regards implementation, in order to make it less costly at Community level, in particular by permitting the sale of some of the alcohol to other outlets, such as potable alcohol;

17.  Considers it necessary, during the initial phase of the reform, to convert the four present distillation measures into two:

18.  Considers it necessary to create a new crisis management mechanism to be used in the event of specific, serious and real situations of emergency that should be identified in accordance with objective criteria defined beforehand at Community level;

19.  Believes that the public storage of alcohol should be abolished and that the sale of alcohol obtained through crisis distillation should be replaced by the immediate organisation of direct sales through invitations to tender;

Unrestricted grubbing-up – grubbing-up subject to criteria

20.  Stresses that the above Commission communication emphasises grubbing-up as a measure to reduce production and the workforce in the sector instead of promoting production control through measures to regulate supply and demand; considers that the consequence of this policy will be that the desired strengthening of the competitiveness of the wine-growing sector will not be achieved; asserts that enhanced subsidiarity may not be used as an alibi for reckless deregulation which will lead to unfair competition even within the borders of the EU;

21.  Considers that the issue of permanent abandonment of wine-growing must not be the centrepiece of the reform of the CMO in wine, but that it should instead be one of the parameters of structural interventions financed by the CMO in wine budget through national financial frameworks, aimed at reviving wine-growing potential and gradually adapting the wine sector to market requirements;

22.  Considers that the initiative of permanent abandonment must lie with the producer, provided that Member States are able to approve or reject permanent abandonment using environmental, social, national and/or regional criteria that are compatible with conditions defined beforehand at Community level; considers it essential to make provision for each Member State or each region to set a permissible upper limit for grubbing-up for each region and that they should have the opportunity to select which categories of wine will take priority in the grubbing-up programme;

23.  Considers that the objective Community criteria restricting the possibility of permanent abandonment may include the following: (a) vineyards in mountainous, coastal and island regions mainly producing wines with geographical indications; (b) vineyards on slopes where soil erosion and the loss of biodiversity must be prevented or in traditional regions of historical importance; (c) vineyards producing wines with a commercial outlet; (d) vineyards where excessive reduction would threaten the existence of a whole terroir or a registered designation of origin; (e) vineyards which received structural aid under Community programmes; (f) cases where the abandonment of wine growing creates environmental risks;

24.  Considers that objective Community criteria which are in line with a more general restructuring of the productive and human potential in the countryside and which may facilitate the choice of permanent abandonment include the following indicative cases: (a) vineyards which now have a very low yield and have no prospect of recovering their potential; (b) cases in which wine growers are included in the early retirement scheme; (c) vineyards unsuited to the production of quality wines or which have commercial opportunities;

25.  Recommends that, in addition to the permanent abandonment scheme, temporary grubbing-up could be introduced with each Member State deciding whether to introduce it; considers that temporary grubbing-up would allow the wine grower to receive some financial support, as the planting rights would be consolidated for several years, at the end of which the wine grower could replant, dispose of his planting rights or apply for conversion to permanent grubbing-up if the scheme is opened by the relevant Member State;

26.  Maintains that grubbed-up areas for which flat-rate compensation is to be paid must be able to be added to the areas eligible for the award of rights to uniform decoupled aid; believes that, when fixing the grubbing-up premiums and the single payment, the minimum environmental requirements should be considered in order to avoid land degradation; considers that Member States should be able to provide wine growers in the grubbing-up programme with additional support from the resources of the support and development programmes for the wine sector) or by applying the fluctuation mechanism and/or through the redivision of the national reserve of single-payment rights so that producer support can reach the level of the national or regional direct decoupled payment; considers that no compensation can be paid for the grubbing-up of illegal plantations;

Ban on new plantings – gradual liberalisation of new plantings

27.  Considers that it is appropriate to proceed in a prudent and transparent manner as regards the progressive reattribution of new planting rights, in order to avoid unverifiable development in the EU's wine-growing potential having negative effects on the market: considers that the Member States must submit programmes which indicate the targeted level of plantation, an assessment of the developments in the granting of rights, the varieties concerned in each region and the time-table for application; stresses that the new plantation rights should primarily be given to young farmers, producers of quality wines and undertakings which have been integrated into the programmes for improvement of quality and marketing and which must be integrated into the readjusted wine register; considers that each Member State, in cooperation with the regions, sectoral organisations and producer groups must, with the launching of the grant of new planting rights, assess the grubbing-up programme and the way it has developed; considers that, before granting new planting rights, it will be necessary to evaluate the situation of plantings which have not been legalised or are illegal;

28.  Emphasises that, regarding areas producing wines with geographical indications it may be necessary for decisions regarding liberalisation to be taken by the competent regional authorities, given the need to protect the value of investments by wine growers in such areas, to prevent the geographical indication in question from being devalued and to ensure continued product quality control;

29.  Considers that new plantings may not be considered as actions eligible for funding such as restructuring, cultivation practices, cross-compliance and crisis management, but that they may on the other hand be considered, inter alia, as collective actions of producers organisations and/or the sectoral organisations pursuing policies for promotion, consumer information, market research and compensation for natural disasters which are included in the national support and development programmes for the wine sector;

Vineyard register – tool for effective control and management of the CMO in the wine sector

30.  Recommends that Member States keep a register of the vineyards indicating varietals planted and number of vines in each unit (pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2392/86)(10);

31.  Emphasises that the vineyard register is the basic tool for controlling compliance with production limits;

Enrichment

32.  Is aware that enrichment has a direct impact on production levels, as it may entail an increase in the quantity produced per hectare; stresses, nevertheless, that the issue of maintaining or abolishing aid for concentrated grape must or rectified concentrated must is closely and inseparably linked to the abolition or maintaining of enrichment with sucrose, bearing in mind also the fall in sugar prices resulting from the reform of the CMO in sugar, the various oenological traditions of the Member States, the advisability and technical feasibility of confining the use of such practices to certain precise maximum quantities, as well as possible alternative uses of must that would have a positive impact on reducing wine surpluses;

33.  Considers that approval for enrichment with sugar may be linked by Member States to conditions such as checks on measures to raise quality (e.g. compliance with yield ceilings) and to climatic conditions;

34.  Believes that enrichment has to be allowed in every wine growing region, where it was traditionally used and where no structural surpluses exist; believes that the Commission's proposal on reducing the maximum level of enrichment is not justified and that the present rules have to remain in force;

35.  Takes the view that the use of sugar to enrich wine should not be banned because to do so would be to discriminate against Member States located in parts of the EU where it is more difficult to grow wine owing to a less favourable climate;

36.  Emphasises the need to provide for aid for concentrated grape must or rectified concentrated used for enrichment, since it is necessary to preserve an historical oenological practice;

37.  Stresses the need to maintain aid for must used to produce grape juice, the aim being to maintain a product used for a purpose other than wine production that is important for the sector and helps to maintain market equilibrium;

38.  Considers that, in the event of enrichment by the addition of concentrated must, the must should come from the same production area;

39.  Points out that the study linking enrichment using sugar with over-production of wine in the EU dates back to 1991, does not reflect current market conditions and in any case did not provide meaningful data;

Public intervention concerning alcohol – private storage of wine and must

40.  Considers that the possibility should be examined of maintaining the private storage of wine and must, at least during the first phase of the reform (2008-2011), taking into account the proposed restrictions on distillation and the abolition of public storage;

Professional and sectoral organisations

41.  Stresses that sectoral organisations may take initiatives, provided that a Community authorisation framework is established, which could cover, for example: the fuller exploitation of the production potential, consumer information concerning moderate wine consumption, the conduct of the research necessary to channel production to products which are better geared to domestic and export market requirements, indispensable commercial investments, the search for new means of restricting the use of plant protection substances, the switch towards organic farming etc.;

42.  Calls on the Commission, in its proposal, to demonstrate a determination to reform the wine-making sector, in particular by means of an effective and concrete Community policy to promote European wine, by making provision for appropriate financial commitments;

43.  Considers it appropriate to set up a specific fund for the promotion of European wines via professional, sectoral and consumer protection organisations and public agencies for regional development;

44.  Believes that the Commission should lay down some activity guidelines for the promotion of European wines, based on moderate and responsible wine consumption and accompanied by the requisite funding;

Labelling and promotion of European wine

45.  Takes the view that the EU must seek to achieve the consolidation of market share, recognition and protection of wines with a specific geographical origin at a worldwide level; points out that these wines will be more easily recognised if labelling is simplified;

46.  Considers that to produce a quality wine by traditional methods and to label it specifically, without at the same time promoting it properly on the world market, is insufficient to ensure that demand is maintained or possibly increased; considers it essential to this end to devise specific, properly financed measures aimed at enhancing the ability to communicate the quality of European wine to the world market;

47.  Considers, in view of the recent redefinition of the provisions concerning labelling in Regulations (EC) No 1991/2004(11) and (EC) No 1427/2004(12), that an assessment should be made of the effects of the changes introduced before any further change is made;

48.  Stresses that oenological practices which are not allowed in the EU must clearly be labelled on imported beverages which refer to the image of wine;

49.  Believes the labelling of EU wines to be essential; considers, however, that it should not be more complicated that the labelling of wines from third countries;

50.  Calls for harmonisation of the Member States" rules concerning the language to be used on labels, in order to ensure that operators are not obliged to translate certain information from one language into another in cases where the term used in the target country is very similar and hence there is no risk of creating confusion amongst consumers;

A proactive and ambitious EU external trade policy for wines as a pillar of the CMO in wine

51.  Points out that the difficulties facing the wine sector arising mainly from increasing wine imports from third countries and increasing numbers of wine stocks which exceed one year's production and have little prospect of being disposed of, exert a downward pressure on prices and producers" incomes and need to be tackled by the establishment of a set of basic priorities not taken into account in the abovementioned Commission communication, including, for example, encouraging moderate and responsible consumption, reallocating budgetary resources with a view to reaching new consumers and winning new markets or even recapturing markets, promoting quality and boosting research;

52.  Calls on the Commission to make all possible efforts in order to strengthen the protection of geographical indications, by increasing the requirements and creating a common framework for them at European level as well as at biregional and multilateral level, particularly within the WTO and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) for the setting up of a multilateral register of wines and spirits, and to combat counterfeiting and any form of misuse of European geographical indications and traditional denominations in third countries;

53.  Considers it necessary to secure better protection of protected geographical indications and protected designations of origin within the framework of the WTO negotiations and bilateral agreements, as a major contribution to maintaining quality wine production linked to local areas and practices;

54.  Stresses that, in order to enhance the sector's competitiveness on international markets, a proactive and ambitious external trade policy for European wines needs to be drawn up in close cooperation with organisations representing European operators, together with a redeployment of budgetary resources and appropriate means;

55.  Stresses the need, as part of this external trade policy for European wines, to conclude bilateral agreements with third countries on the wine trade, on the basis of mutual recognition and protection of geographical indications;

56.  Recalls that the EU has pledged to phase out its export subsidies by 2013; calls on the Commission to mitigate the consequences of reduced subsidies by improving the availability of resources for income diversification of wine producers and by introducing qualified market access for wine products, in so far as this is necessary to preserve equilibrium in the European market;

57.  Calls for wine to be included in the WTO list of sensitive products;

58.  Believes that owing to the existing particularities of the regime of geographical indications of wines, the possibility could be examined, during the first phase of the reform (2008-2011), of incorporating the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(13) subject to the necessary adjustments, in the new CMO for the wine sector; points out that during the second phase of the reform (2012-2015), once the gradual classification and uniform registration of wines has been achieved at Community and national level during the first phase, the advisability of incorporating the provisions of the future regulation on the new CMO for the wine sector relative to geographical indications in Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 should be examined;

59.  Stresses the importance of non-trade concerns within the WTO framework; calls on the Commission to develop a labelling scheme for imported wine derived alcoholic drinks, which do not comply with the European oenological practices and therefore should not be labelled as wine;

60.  Points out that lifting the ban on vinification of imported must poses one of the most significant risks as regards the adulteration of wine, the distortion of the market and a reduction in Community production, and that any agreement to this end must be prevented by the Commission within the framework of the WTO;

61.  Considers that under Community law there should be a ban on the fermentation of imported musts and on the mixing thereof with Community musts, since such procedures are not consistent with other measures proposed by the Commission, such as grubbing-up and the withdrawal of funding relating to the use of concentrated must for the purpose of increasing alcoholic proof;

62.  Emphasises that there is no obligation to negotiate within the WTO on the possibility of blending imported wines from third countries and blending them with Community wines, and opposes such a development, since it will create enormous problems as regards the origin, provenance and identification of products, and the degradation of wine produced in European countries;

63.  Considers it essential that in order to protect the quality and the reputation of European wines, only wines and musts produced within the EU should be admissible for the purpose of making European wines;

International Organisation of Vine and Wine – bilateral trade agreements

64.  Believes, at a time when the EU is conducting difficult negotiations in the WTO and concluding bilateral agreements aimed at safeguarding European food products, products with geographical indications, organic produce, etc., the Council should – subject to consultation of the European Parliament – be the body responsible for approving new oenological practices, because if this competence is transferred to the Commission the designation and classification of quality wines in the EU would be jeopardised; considers that such oenological practices should be entered on a positive Community list ;

65.  Calls on the Commission to use every possible means to prevent fraud and abuses of designations of geographical origin in third countries;

66.  Considers that the CMO in wine must not be deprived of all financial means at European level through transfers to the second pillar of the CAP and the return to national competence of measures opening the way to distortions of competition and discrimination between production/marketing structures and between Member States;

67.  Maintains that oenological practices must not cause confusion among consumers, adulterate quality or create unfair competition; stresses that hitherto authorised oenological practices cannot be automatically authorised and approved for use in the EU, even where wines are intended for export to regions where such practices are authorised;

68.  Considers that bringing together all oenological practices under the International Organisation of Vine and Wine is a step in the right direction provided that those practices are assessed and established on the basis of scientific and technical studies, whilst guaranteeing food safety and public health;

Information and promotion of moderate responsible consumption of wine

69.  Notes that there has been a steady drop in wine consumption in Europe, mainly in the traditional wine consuming countries, which is one of the causes of the structural surplus of wine; notes that in recent years exports of wine have stagnated, while imports have grown dynamically, making it vital that the European wine-growing sector becomes more competitive; asks the Commission to submit a report directly explaining the reasons for the fall in European wine exports in recent years and the dynamic growth in imports from third countries, specifying in particular the extent to which bilateral trading agreements with third countries have been implemented, the account taken of the legitimate trading interests of the EU and European producers and the appropriate use made of common trading policy mechanisms in response to these problems;

70.  Points out that the sustainable development of the European wine sector requires the redeployment of substantial budgetary resources within the CMO in wine for the promotion of moderate responsible consumption of wines; considers that reinforcing the trend towards an increased moderate and responsible consumption of wines is a positive major contribution to the protection of European consumers and the public health; these measures must be developed by an effective partnership between the Community, the Member States, the regions and the wine sector itself, which has a major role to play;

71.  Calls on the Commission to introduce a proactive trade policy to promote the quality of European wines and defend European wine-making processes;

72.  Stresses that the Commission's priorities should also include stepping up promotion of wine products and efforts to win new consumers and markets, especially in connection with exports and the new emerging markets, through a proactive and ambitious external trade policy with appropriate resources;

73.  Considers that it is essential to promote and provide funding for consumer information concerning the qualitative characteristics of wine produced in Europe in accordance with controlled traditional oenological practices, in order to protect consumers from imported products of dubious quality and to promote wine produced in Europe on the internal and world markets;

National envelopes – uniform Community policies based on support and development programmes for the wine sector

74.  Stresses the need to maintain the Community budget and not to transfer funds from the first pillar to the second pillar of the CAP, which concerns rural development, since this might result in the dilution of resources at the expense of the wine sector; demands that measures eligible for funding be clearly specified, so as to guarantee that funds are in fact used for the wine sector;

75.  Recommends, on the basis of the objectives of a viable and competitive reform of the CMO in wine, that a Community framework be laid down, which may be implemented at national/regional level, including in relation to means of funding which must come under the first pillar of the CAP, i.e. CMO in wine resources; believes that these policies may include: restructuring of vineyards, measures to improve recording and marketing structures, agricultural cultivation practices and environmental standards within the framework of quality management, crisis management mechanisms, research into the production and improved marketing of products, addressing natural disasters and promotion and information of consumers and grubbing-up, and, during a transitional phase, private storage, distillation measures and other valid market mechanisms;

76.  Stresses that the reform of the CMO in wine should give priority to framing policies which will contribute to strengthening competitiveness and improving the quality of European wines; maintains that Community resources should be allocated to the national support and development programmes for the wine sector on the basis of common criteria so that there are no disparities between Member States or regions;

77.  Stresses that, in selecting the method of allocating Community resources to each national support and development programme for the wine sector, account should be taken of the fact that market intervention measures - which have been used in totally different ways by Member States – absorb a significant portion of the resources of the current CMO in wine;

78.  Considers that, based on statistical data of production and surface area of wine cultivation, in each Member State during a given period, for instance the period 2001-2005, the budget of the national envelopes may be allocated at the outset, so as to enable each Member State to use - within its appointed "envelope" – whatever tools it considers appropriate within a regulatory framework established in advance at Community level in accordance with objective criteria, within which framework the measures laid down will provide the same support for all the Member States;

79.  Considers, however, that a second valid solution might also be one based on the amounts used by each Member State during the current CMO in wine, or the drawing up of a formula and/or mixed criterion that takes into account historical data, the size of the vineyard and the quantities produced and marketed for each Member State, thereby ensuring a system of premiums that would meet the objectives of the reform;

80.  Considers it indispensable, where a Member State considers supplementary aid for improving its structural interventions in the wine sector to be necessary, that it can also co-fund them from the second pillar of the CAP in the case of eligible actions; considers that these actions concern chiefly a combination of structural interventions and early retirement schemes and policies for supporting young men and women farmers;

81.  Considers that new plantings may not be included in eligible funded actions;

82.  Notes that any reform of the CMO in wine must protect and strengthen the competitiveness of European wine producers; stresses that innovative capacity and dynamism are vital aspects in this connection;

o
o   o

83.  Instructs the President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p.1). (2) OJ C 219, 30.7.1999, p. 198. (3) OJ C 150, 28.5.1999, p. 289. (4) OJ C 279, 1.10.1999, p. 385. (5) OJ C 177 E, 25.7.2002, p. 50. (6) OJ C 280 E, 18.11.2006, p. 48. (7) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capreform/wine/index_en.htm. (8) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capreform/wine/sem_concl_en.pdf. (9) http://europa.eu.int/griculture/eval/reports/wine/index_en.htm. (10) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/86 of 24 July 1986 establishing a Community vineyard register (OJ L 208, 31.7.1986, p.1). Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1631/98 (OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 14). (11) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1991/2004 of 19 November 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ L 344, 20.11.2004, p. 9). (12) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1427/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1622/2000 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine and establishing a Community code of oenological practices and processes (OJ L 263, 10.8.2004, p. 3). (13) OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

European Parliament resolution on the external dimension of the fight against international terrorism (2006/2032(INI))

P6_TA(2007)0050 A6-0441/2006

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe,

–   having regard to Articles 6 and 7 and Title V of the EU Treaty,

–   having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948,

–   having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950,

–   having regard to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism of the Council of Europe, signed in Strasbourg on 27 January 1977,

–   having regard to the thirteen United Nations instruments currently in force and to the four instruments adopted in 2005 but not yet in force relating to the prevention and eradication of international terrorism, to Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 (2001) and 1267 (1999) and to General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/288 of 8 September 2006 on the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and the Plan of Action annexed thereto,

–   having regard to UN Security Council Resolution 1267(1999), implemented at EU level by Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002, imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taleban(1),

–   having regard to the 2005 UN World Summit Outcome on terrorism (General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/1),

–   having regard to the report of the High-Level Group entitled "Alliance of Civilisations", presented to the UN Secretary-General on 13 November 2006,

–   having regard to the mutual defence clause contained in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, invoked by the NATO members on 12 September 2001, thereby defining the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre of 11 September 2001 as an outside attack against the United States,

–   having regard to the European Security Strategy (ESS) – "A Secure Europe in a Better World" – approved by the European Council on 12 December 2003, and the EU Strategy Against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction of the same date,

–   having regard to the report entitled "A Human Security Doctrine for Europe – The Barcelona Report of the Study Group on Europe's Security Capabilities", presented to the EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) on 15 September 2004,

–   having regard to the conclusions of the Brussels European Council of 25 and 26 March 2004, in particular the European Council Declaration on Combating Terrorism of 25 March 2004, which included a solidarity clause,

–   having regard to the Plan of Action against Terrorism, approved by the European Council on 21 September 2001, and the Council's revised Action Plan/Roadmap of 15 June 2004, endorsed by the European Council at its meeting on 17 and 18 June 2004,

–   having regard to the European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy, adopted by the European Council at its meeting of 14 and 15 December 2005, and the European Union Strategy for Combating Radicalisation and Recruitment to Terrorism, adopted by the European Council on the same date,

–   having regard to the conclusions of the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security held in Madrid from 8 to 11 March 2005,

–   having regard to the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations of 27 April 2006 entitled "Uniting Against terrorism: recommendations for a global counter-terrorism strategy" (A/60/825),

–   having regard to the report of the United Nations High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on Threats, Challenges and Change , "A more secure world: our shared responsibility", of 2 December 2004, and the report of the UN Secretary-General of 21 March 2005, prepared for the 2005 reform summit and entitled "In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all",

–   having regard to the Euro-Mediterranean Code of Conduct on Countering Terrorism, adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Summit of 27 and 28 November 2005 in Barcelona,

–   having regard to the EU-US declarations of 26 June 2004 on Combating Terrorism, of 20 June 2005 on Enhancing Cooperation in the Field of Non Proliferation and the Fight Against Terrorism and of 21 June 2006 issued at the Vienna Summit, and noting with great concern the CIA's secret detention programme the existence of which was confirmed by President Bush on 6 September 2006,

–   having regard to the European Union-Russia Road Map for the Common Space of External Security signed on 10 May 2005 on the occasion of the 15th EU-Russia Summit,

–   having regard to the recently discovered existence of highly dangerous terrorist organisations in Italy and France,

–   having regard to the Joint EU-ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Declaration on Terrorism signed on 27 January 2003 on the occasion of the 14th EU-ASEAN Ministerial Meeting,

–   having regard to the Joint EU-OAU (Organization of African Unity) Declaration on Terrorism, signed on 11 October 2001,

–   having regard to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) adopted on 17 July 1998 by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries,

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee of 29 November 2005 entitled "The Prevention of and Fight against Terrorist Financing through enhanced national level coordination and greater transparency of the non-profit sector", including a Recommendation to the Member States (COM(2005)0620) and the Commission's memorandum of 1 December 2005 entitled "Financing of terrorism: new guidelines for Member States on national level coordination structures and vulnerabilities of the non-profit sector" (MEMO/05/460),

–   having regard to its Recommendation of 7 June 2005 to the European Council and the Council on the EU anti-terrorism Action Plan(2),

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0441/2006),

A.   whereas international terrorism (including its ideology) now constitutes one of the greatest threats to security, peace, stability and the democratic values of the international community and in particular a direct threat to European citizens, EU Member States, democracy and the rule of law, values on which the European Union is founded,

B.   conscious of the diverse nature of terrorism, of the organisations which practise it and of the States and non-state agents which sponsor it, finance it and practise it for their own ends; conscious also of the emerging and unpredictable nature of a phenomenon which presupposes an obvious sense of opportunity (particularly in the case of the terrorism practised by radical groups which claim to be defending Islam) and the need for the European Union to pursue a proactive (and not just a reactive) policy in order to combat it,

C.   whereas Europe, from being mainly a platform for logistical support, has turned into a major target of planned attacks,

D.   whereas, pursuant to the ESS, the fight against terrorism constitutes a priority for the European Union and a key element in its external action,

E.   whereas the pursuit of security beyond the EU's borders should be guided by the principles of the human security doctrine, namely the primacy of human rights, the imperatives of multilateralism, a bottom-up approach based on knowledge of the local situation, a regional focus and the establishment of a clear and legitimate political authority,

F.   whereas the European Union has its own strategy for combating terrorism which must be integrated in a multilateral strategy and be firmly based on the unconditional respect of human rights and of the principles underlying states governed by the rule of law, whereas terrorism constitutes precisely a direct attack on both, and whereas any action outside that framework constitutes a failure of democracy,

G.   whereas terrorism is always criminal and unjustifiable, in any circumstance, wherever and by whomsoever it is practised, and whereas it may never be used in the pursuit of political objectives,

H.   whereas the victims of terrorism are a moral reference point for our societies and for democracy and whereas the public authorities should listen to their voice and ensure that they are taken into account whenever decisions are taken with a view to combating those who made them unwilling protagonists,

I.   whereas terrorist groups exploit extreme poverty, the failure to uphold human rights and constitutional government, collective frustration, the lack of access to training and social exclusion in pursuit of their capture and infiltration strategies,

J.   whereas societies which suffer from high levels of political, social, economic, ethnic, religious and other discrimination and from a lack of democracy and human rights constitute an ideal breeding ground for terrorism,

K.   whereas, in order for terrorism to be fought effectively, a detailed knowledge is required of the terrorist group which is being fought, of that group's ideology and of the social, political, economic and religious context from which it emerges and on which its perpetrators and supporters feed,

L.   whereas specific action should be taken in order to combat each terrorist organisation, in view of the fact that each one has its own objectives, organisation and modus operandi, and whereas, in particular, specific action should be taken against the Al-Qaeda organisation,

M.   whereas the threat of terrorism is not restricted to specific geographic zones and whereas terrorist organisations are to be found both within and outside the Union's borders and have provided ample proof of their ability to carry out attacks and acts of violence in any continent and against various countries simultaneously,

N.   whereas the Member States individually and the European Union and its institutions have already been or may be direct targets of international terrorism,

O.   whereas the painful experiences to date show that no Member State can on its own successfully face terrorism and whereas it is therefore of fundamental importance that there be, first, a common Union policy to combat terrorism, making use of all the instruments and resources at the disposal of states governed by the rule of law and of the Union itself, and, second, effective and democratically controlled international cooperation in the fight against international terrorism,

P.   whereas essential requirements in an effective fight against terrorism are an enhancement of transatlantic cooperation and coordination and full implementation of the above-mentioned EU-US declarations on Combating Terrorism and on Enhancing Cooperation in the field of Non-Proliferation and the Fight Against Terrorism, and the EU-US declaration issued at the Vienna Summit,

Q.   whereas the fight against international terrorism calls for a strong linkage between internal and external aspects of security and whereas the EU must aim for a holistic, coherent and cross-pillar approach to this challenge,

R.   aware that the global dimension of terrorism also requires a global response, tackling terrorism in all its dimensions, including the security, political, economic social and cultural aspects,

S.   whereas the European Union is founded on a set of values, as expressed, for instance, in the Copenhagen criteria, and whereas those values should be promoted all over the world as the only way to prevent terrorism in the long term,

T.   aware that the external and internal dimensions of the fight against terrorism are interlinked and inseparable,

U.   whereas prevention, and hence the need for exhaustive consideration of intelligence reports, are basic elements in the fight against terrorism, as evidenced by some of the attacks which have recurred,

V.   whereas in order for the actions of the Union in the fight against terrorism to be effective, close cooperation and an enhanced exchange of information between the institutions of the Union, the Member States and their respective intelligence services, and the Union's specialised agencies (such as Europol and Eurojust) are vital,

W.   whereas the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator has an essential role to play and whereas he must be given more powers and resources,

X.   whereas the Union must develop a proactive, rather than merely reactive, prevention, protection and suppression policy to combat international terrorism effectively,

Y.   whereas, in order to be effective, the fight against international terrorism and its ideology must be backed by real conviction and determination within the Union and the Member States and have the backing of an aware and well-informed public,

Z.   whereas the Member States must not delay implementation of all commitments associated with the fight against terrorism, based on counter-terrorism cooperation both within the Union and at the international level,

AA.   convinced that demonising any culture, civilisation or religion in the name of combating terrorism is a mistake which may have counter-productive effects,

AB.   whereas Muslims are themselves among the victims of Islamist terrorism, which is linked in turn to inherent conflicts within the Muslim world and to struggles for power and natural resources, including oil,

Fundamental principles of the external dimension of the fight against international terrorism

1.  Supports the need for a strategic objective of combating terrorism globally, respecting human rights, with the ultimate aim of achieving a more secure European Union, and allowing its citizens to enjoy a true area of freedom, security and justice; shares the view of the Council that, other forms of terrorism notwithstanding, the most serious threat to Europe at the moment is posed by violent radical groups claiming to defend Islam, such as the criminal Al-Qaeda network and the groups which are affiliated to it or are inspired by its ideology;

2.  Emphasises the need for the European Union, its Member States and its partner countries to base their global counter-terrorism strategy on the fundamental principles which also serve to guide the actions of the United Nations, on a constructive and serious dialogue between peoples and nations, as well as between cultures, religions and civilisations, taking account of the respective perceptions and concerns, and on respect for international law;

3.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that certain groups of people from various diasporas living in Europe are not stigmatised, in particular by supporting policies to combat xenophobia and human rights violations against immigrant and refugee communities, as well as development aid projects undertaken by migrants or migrants" associations;

4.  Expresses its regret at the failure of the UN World Summit in 2005 to reach an agreement on a comprehensive definition of terrorism, and stresses the need to arrive at a generally accepted definition of international terrorism; therefore calls on the Council to adopt a common position establishing a definition of terrorism on the basis of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism(3) and taking into account the definition proposed by the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan(4);

5.  Stresses the urgent need fully and properly to implement all the political measures adopted at the highest political level in the European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the Action Plan and the Strategy for Combating Radicalisation and Recruitment to Terrorism, so that the ambitious mechanisms and proposals set out in those documents result as soon as possible in specific and effective practical measures to combat terrorism;

6.  Welcomes the adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and its annexed Plan of Action on 8 September 2006; stresses the need for terrorism in all its forms and manifestations to be combated by all available means, pursuant to the UN Charter as reflected in the Security Council's Resolution 1624 (2005); expresses concern at the delay in the adoption of the global convention on international terrorism; encourages the Institutions of the European Union and the various Member States to continue working unstintingly to achieve an international consensus permitting, on the one hand, the adoption of the global convention and, on the other, the effective implementation of the measures set out in the said Strategy and Plan of Action;

7.  Regrets the fact that, despite evidence of the terrorist threat, some Member States have not yet signed and/or ratified some of the 17 United Nations universal instruments on combating terrorism; notes that as yet only two countries have ratified 13 conventions and 78 other countries have ratified or acceded to 12 of them; considers it particularly worrying, however, that 33 other countries have ratified or acceded to only 6 or fewer such international conventions;

8.  Calls on those Member States of the European Union and their partners which have not already done so to adopt swiftly the national legislation necessary for the effective implementation of those conventions and to inform the relevant bodies of the United Nations thereof in good time;

9.  Recommends that, in its external actions, the European Union should make use of appropriate means in order to encourage countries to become parties to all universal instruments against terrorism and to enact, as appropriate, the domestic legislation necessary to implement the provisions of those conventions and protocols, also benefiting from the UN's technical expertise;

10.  Emphasises that the European Union's external actions to combat international terrorism should in the first place be aimed at prevention, in order to ensure that radical or extremist groups, and also States, do not resort to terrorism and do not support it as a strategy in the pursuit of their objectives; urges the Member States to acquire greater institutional capacity for combating terrorism; considers that in broad terms the objectives relating to prevention set out in the European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy are in keeping with that objective;

11.  Calls on the EU to ensure that measures taken with a view to fighting terrorism do not lead to curbs on the ability of the media in countries in the South to deal in an independent way with issues relating to the rights of poor, vulnerable people and to publish information that is essential when it comes to determining the specific aid to be provided to those countries;

12.  Calls on the countries with which the EU has commenced accession negotiations or which have expressed their intention of joining the EU to take immediate measures to disband nationalistic and fanatical organisations which are directly opposed to the democratic principles of the Union and which stir up animosities and racial hatred;

13.  Reiterates the need at all times to drive home the message that terrorism is unacceptable and unjustifiable by all state and non-state actors in all circumstances and in all cultures, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify it, and to eliminate all factors which may be exploited by terrorists, such as the dehumanisation of victims, the outbreak and persistence of violent conflicts, bad governance, the lack of civil rights and violation of human rights, religious and ethnic discrimination, political exclusion and socio-economic marginalisation;

14.  Considers it likewise fundamental that the European Union's external actions to combat international terrorism, while complying with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the European Court of Human Rights, should aim to prevent terrorists from gaining access to the means for carrying out their attacks, for example by depriving them of the opportunity to travel, to gain access to means of communication and to proselytise, to use the Internet for their purposes, to receive financial support, to engage in money laundering, to gain access to arms, be they conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological, and to easily attain their objectives and achieve their aims;

15.  Considers that the protective measures included in the European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy are in line with this objective but that their actual effectiveness varies greatly and that there are various other options in terms of the Union's external action;

16.  Reiterates the need to fight against flows of illicit capital and money laundering within the Union (through the implementation by December 2007 of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing(5)) and elsewhere, and to exercise effective control over various Islamic charities;

17.  Notes that Member States have an obligation to exercise vigilance and recommends that determined use be made of the instruments at the disposal of the Union in its external actions in order to make countries which support terrorist groups and which organise, finance, encourage or support terrorist activities by any other means desist from doing so, if necessary through the imposition of sanctions or through coercive measures;

18.  Supports unreservedly the development of the capacity of States to prevent terrorism through the promotion of the rule of law, respect for human rights and the establishment of effective criminal justice systems as well as through the promotion of high-quality education and religious and cultural tolerance; to that end, urges all the States within the international community to ensure that incitement to commit terrorist acts is banned by law and to prevent such conduct, as called for in the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy of 8 September 2006;

19.  Considers that the development of a preventative capacity also requires States to directly oppose the financing of terrorist organisations by practical means, to seek to ensure that transport is safe (as stipulated in the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP) (COM(2004)0702)), to make use of the possibilities offered by the Internet to combat terrorism, to improve the protection of potential terrorist targets and the capacity to respond to attacks, and to improve their capacity to prevent terrorists from acquiring conventional weapons or nuclear, biologic, chemical or radiological materials;

20.  Emphasises the need to continue defending human rights and fundamental freedoms in the fight against terrorism by means of the international instruments available, taking account of the fact that human rights are a universal value and an integral part of European external action but also of the fact that their violation clearly jeopardises the fight against terrorism and constitutes a failure of democracy; considers, therefore, that the only effective instruments employed in the fight against international terrorism are legal means and that all activities that escape independent international scrutiny, such as extraordinary renditions or prisons that operate outside the international legal framework, should be prohibited under international law;

21.  Considers it fundamental to have sufficient human and budgetary resources available to combat terrorism; supports the various proposals of the Commission in this regard; proposes that, in the event of a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) operation to combat terrorism, the cost of the common expenditure be charged to the budget of the European Union; supports the setting-up of an international fund to provide economic assistance to States with fewer resources in order that they may successfully assume their responsibilities in the fight against terrorism;

22.  Considers that including financial support for a range of activities connected with preventing and fighting terrorism in ODA can only further undermine the concept of official development assistance and its primary aim, namely to eliminate poverty;

23.  Stresses that any EU programme designed to foster cooperation on counter-terrorism, surveillance technology and exchanges of information should include a financial clause setting aside part of the budget for fundamental rights issues as well as for a subsequent independent impact assessment;

24.  Strongly stresses to the Member States that nothing can justify diverting aid away from countries that are devoting themselves to reducing poverty and achieving the MDGs and towards countries directly involved in the war on terror;

25.  Stresses that additional financial resources released via the implementation of innovative financial instruments cannot replace commitments already entered into in terms of ODA, and considers that, when those new resources become available, they should not be used to finance measures to prevent or fight terrorism at the expense of measures for fighting poverty, into which it is essential that the new resources be channelled;

26.  Draws attention to the fact the development of a common approach to the management of the European Union's external frontiers could constitute one element of the fight against terrorism, and consequently is concerned that the technical equipment at the disposal of the authorities responsible for controlling the borders is not of a uniformly high standard;

27.  Underlines the crucial role played by civil society and NGOs in the promotion of cross- cultural and inter-religious understanding through constructive dialogue;

28.  Considers that it is essential to develop intercultural dialogue and other confidence-building measures within and outside the EU, the first requirement being to reach a common understanding of the concept of "intercultural dialogue" inside the EU; also considers it essential to examine the contributory factors leading to the radicalisation and recruitment of Muslims inside and outside Europe;

Means available to the European Union in the area of its external action to combat terrorism

29.  Emphasises the many-faceted nature of the responses available to the European Union in the area of external action to combat terrorism and the need for Member States to bring together and use in a coherent manner their political, preventive and suppressive instruments involving police and judicial cooperation, intelligence and communication, and all other types of responses called for and endorsed by the United Nations and forming part of a multilateral strategy;

30.  Draws attention to the recommendations contained in its resolution of 28 September 2006(6), and stresses in particular that if, with a view to implementing development cooperation, a large number of objectives are pursued that are only indirectly linked, or not linked at all, to the strategy laid down in the European Consensus on Development and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (for which the UN believes additional annual aid of USD 50 billion is needed), it will become significantly more difficult to take effective action against poverty;

31.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to pursue an anti-terrorism policy that is careful not to undermine the contribution made by European development cooperation to drawing up and implementing strategies aimed at effectively combating poverty and at preventing – increasingly prolonged – violent conflicts, particularly in Africa;

32.  Stresses that the response adopted by the EU in the face of terrorism must be proportionate and properly targeted on the fight against terrorism, bearing in mind that, until proved otherwise, the most productive measures in the fight against new forms of terrorism are effective intelligence and police services, in other words activities which, however legitimate, do not come within development cooperation policy or the fight against poverty;

33.  Reiterates, therefore, its proposal to render the Union's anti-terrorist policy more coherent and effective in its relations with third countries through:

34.  Commends the various initiatives to promote dialogue, tolerance and understanding among different cultures, civilisations and religions; regards the idea of creating a "Euro-Med citizenship" as an example of a broad and concrete initiative that can help bring forward views of the region's common future;

35.  Emphasises the need for greater cooperation and coordination with the United States in the fight against international terrorism, while stressing the need to protect the fundamental principles of human rights;

36.  Emphasises the need for an increase in the powers and the resources available to the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator (with particular reference to the inadequate resources made available to him), so that his work can have a greater impact and assume a higher profile;

37.  Calls on the Commission and the Council, in their external relations, to insist on the signature and the ratification of the Rome Statute and, consequently, on the universal recognition by all third countries of the binding nature of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court;

38.  Calls on the Council, the Commission and the governments of the Member States to take effective practical action to bring about the proscription of terrorist organisations;

39.  Considers it essential to encourage greater stability outside the Union through the use of all available instruments, programmes and means in the ambit of external action, including:

40.  Calls on the Commission to present as soon as possible a communication setting out the existing assistance mechanisms and programmes to reduce and face up to the threats to the security of the Union and its citizens, including in particular proposals and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and coherence of the Union's assistance programmes;

41.  Calls on Member States to contribute more to an integrated EU-wide threat assessment by increasing the flow of information to SitCen in the Secretariat of the Council of the EU; calls on Member States to increase staff and resources at the disposal of the Situation Centre and to make increasing use of its combined terrorism assessments, which include information on external threats and information from internal security services and Europol;

42.  Recommends the adoption of measures leading to establishment of a new configuration for meetings of the Council, involving the participation of Foreign Ministers and Interior Ministers when dealing with the fight against terrorism;

43.  Recommends implementation of the provisions of the EU Treaty concerning the ESDP applied to the fight against terrorism and also of the Declaration on Combating Terrorism of 25 March 2004, the Plan of Action adopted by the European Council on 21 September 2001 and the Counter-Terrorism Strategy of 14 and 15 December 2005, through the adoption of measures such as:

Parliamentary control of the fight against international terrorism by the Institutions of the Union

44.  Highlights the vital importance of prevention in the fight against international terrorism and the need to share in real time with the other Member States and Institutions of the Union all information obtained through reliable and efficient information systems and for a rigorous and professional assessment of the reports drawn up by the various police and intelligence services;

45.  Asks the Council for the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 November 2002 between the European Parliament and the Council concerning access by the European Parliament to sensitive information of the Council in the field of security and defence policy(10) to be reviewed and brought up-to-date in order to improve the current system for the transmission of classified information and to guarantee the transmission to the European Parliament of all available information relating to the fight against international terrorism, without its being under any circumstances denied information which, in the internal sphere, has been or should be transmitted to national parliaments by the respective governments of the Member States or the international organisations of which they form part;

46.  Calls on the Council not to limit itself in its annual report on the CFSP to describing the activities of the Union in the area of the fight against terrorism, but rather, on the basis of Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union, to really consult the European Parliament as regards the principal aspects and basic options of that fight, which constitutes a priority under the ESS, the Union's external action and the CFSP as a whole; considers it indispensable that it be informed and consulted in the event of a large-scale terrorist attack, where necessary through the Special Committee provided for in the above-mentioned Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 November 2002;

47.  Considers the High Level Political Dialogue on Counter-Terrorism, which brings the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission together on a six-monthly basis, to be a good example of the possibilities available for the indispensable interinstitutional cooperation needed in the fight against terrorism; proposes that such meetings be held at least on a quarterly basis and that the European Parliament Delegation also include the chairmen of the permanent committees on the three main areas of external action (foreign affairs, international trade and development cooperation);

48.  Asks for the reports drawn up by SitCen for the Council of the Union to be transmitted regularly to the European Parliament, if necessary pursuant to the modalities provided for in the above-mentioned Interinstitutional Agreement;

49.  Considers it of fundamental importance that the European Parliament be closely involved in the mechanism for implementing the solidarity clause (the introduction of which was approved in the Declaration on Combating Terrorism), essentially in cases where the decisions adopted have implications as regards the ESDP;

50.  Calls on the Commission and on the European Counter-Terrorism Coordinator to submit an annual report to the European Parliament on their activities in the fight against terrorism and to take due account of Parliament's observations and recommendations in that regard;

51.  Calls on the Council anew to inform Parliament on the regular updating of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism(11) (list of terrorist organisations and groups) and on developments since 2001;

52.  Pledges to establish an enhanced dialogue with the national parliaments on the fight against terrorism with a view to guaranteeing joint parliamentary control of the activities of the various security and intelligence services, given that, in its capacity as representative of the peoples of the European Union, it is incumbent upon the European Parliament to exercise public and transparent control over the measures adopted by the Union in relation to the fight against terrorism, including the activities of the European Counter-Terrorism Coordinator and of the various bodies dedicated to that task;

o
o   o

53.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Council of Europe, the United Nations and its specialised agencies.

(1) OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 14/2007 (OJ L 6, 11.1.2007, p. 6). (2) OJ C 124 E, 25.5.2006, p. 241. (3) OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p. 3. (4) "In addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." (definition as originally proposed by the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change in its report of 2 December 2004). (5) OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 15. (6) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0382. (7) OJ C 131 E, 5.6.2003, p. 147. (8) OJ L 327, 24.11.2006, p. 1. (9) OJ L 310, 9.11.2006, p. 1. (10) OJ C 298, 30.11.2002, p. 1. (11) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93.

European Parliament resolution on the Situation of the European economy: preparatory report on the broad economic policy guidelines for 2007 (2006/2272(INI))

P6_TA(2007)0051 A6-0012/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission's Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (2005-2008) (COM(2005)0141) (the Integrated Guidelines),

–   having regard to Council Decision 2005/600/EC of 12 July 2005 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States(1),

–   having regard to the Commission's Economic forecasts(2),

–   having regard to the Commission's EU Economy 2006 Review of 22 November 2006, "Adjustment dynamics in the euro area - Experiences and challenges",

–   having regard to the Member States" autumn 2006 reports under the Lisbon Strategy on the implementation of their national reform programmes(3),

–   having regard to the Commission's annual progress report of 12 December 2006 on the Lisbon Strategy, "Implementing the renewed Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs - A year of delivery",

–   having regard to the Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament, "The long-term sustainability of public finances in the EU" (COM(2006)0574),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication, "The demographic future of Europe – from challenge to opportunity" (COM(2006)0571),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Central Bank, "Annual Statement on the Euro Area" (COM(2006)0392),

–   having regard to its resolution of 26 May 2005 on the Commission recommendation on the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the Community in the framework of the integrated guidelines for growth and jobs (2005-2008)(4),

–   having regard to the Key Issues Paper by the Council Presidency of 7 February 2006 for the Ecofin Council with a view to the spring 2007 European Council,

–   having regard to the Presidency's conclusions at the European Council in Lisbon of 23 to 24 March 2000, the European Council in Göteborg of 15 to 16 June 2001 and the European Council in Brussels of 22 to 23 March 2005,

–   having regard to Article 99(2) of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0012/2007),

A.   whereas the Integrated Guidelines are a central instrument of EU policy on the economy and employment focusing on a medium-term period of three years; whereas that instrument should, based on the version of 2005 and its forthcoming review, be assessed carefully and developed further in the interest of improving its implementation,

B.   whereas the Integrated Guidelines, the reformed Stability and Growth Pact and the Financial Framework for 2007 to 2013 will contribute together to creating greater coherence in the policy-making process and improving the economic governance of the European Union,

C.   whereas the Integrated Guidelines should not be regarded merely as the relabelling of existing policies but should become a genuinely integrated package of policies encompassing and converging macroeconomic, microeconomic and employment dimensions,

D.   whereas the Integrated Guidelines are an essential component of the Lisbon Strategy and should, as its central implementing instrument, with the aid of a balanced "policy-mix" approach, pursue reciprocally inspiring reforms in the areas of the economy, employment, the environment and social security,

E.   whereas economic growth is not an end in itself but a necessary condition, and as such, part of an integrated approach, for securing the welfare and living standards of citizens; whereas the endeavour to achieving sustainable growth must be based on a policy for the economy, social security, employment, the environment and the budget that does justice to its responsibility towards future generations,

Making good use of the upswing in the economy and employment in the European Union

1.  Notes that after six years of low economic growth, stagnation or even recession in many Member States, the European economy is now achieving better results with a growth rate that exceeds that of previous years, that is to say a growth rate in 2006 of 2,8 % of GDP in the European Union and of 2,6 % in the euro area falling in 2007, however, to 2,4 % in the European Union and 2,1 % in the euro area; raises the question as to the extent to which European growth may be cyclical and stresses the need to enhance Europe's growth potential so as to be able to generate employment;

2.  Points out that there are wide disparities between the growth rates of the Member States and expresses concern at the relatively low growth rate in a number of the larger Member States, which is primarily attributable to stagnant internal demand; notes in this context the above-average growth rate enjoyed by the Scandinavian countries accompanied by a recent substantial reduction in unemployment;

3.  Stresses the improvement in public finances with a reduction in the average budget deficit to 2 % of GDP in 2006; expects further improvements in the quality of public finances which do not only mirror cyclical factors;

4.  Notes the positive development in the employment market, with a doubling of the annual growth rate of labour productivity from 0,6 to 1,2 % and a decline in unemployment to 8 % in both the European Union and the euro area in 2006, and a predicted unemployment rate of 7,3 % in the European Union and 7,4 % in the euro area by 2008, employment growth around 1,4 %, representing 2,9 million new jobs in 2006 with the prospect of a further 7 million new jobs during the period 2007 to 2008, which would mean a rise in the employment rate from 63,7 % in 2005 to 65,5 % by 2008; notes, however, that unemployment rates, particularly among women, are still high and far from achieving the Lisbon Objectives; calls, therefore, for further efforts to be made towards attaining an effective and inclusive European labour market, which combines flexibility and security and is able to achieve a significantly higher participation rate; stresses in this context that necessary reforms should be designed and implemented in best collaboration with the social partners;

5.  Is concerned at the constantly high level of poverty in the European Union which, following a fall from 17 to 15 % in the mid-1990s, has recently risen again to 17 % in 2005; considers it unacceptable in this connection that, in the enlarged European Union, around 80 million people now have a disposable income of below 60 % of the national equalised median income;

6.  Points out that in 2006, the European Union expanded its leading role as a world champion exporter, with an 8 % growth in exports, but underlines the fact that the export surplus accounts for only about 0,3 percentage point of the current GDP growth in the euro area and stresses the risk factor attached to the high euro-dollar exchange rate; draws attention to the fact that the present economic upswing is predominantly riding on recovering domestic demand and that this is largely as a result of short-term investment; points out that the fundamental problem facing the European economy in the last decade has been inadequate domestic demand attributable to a lack of confidence caused by unemployment; expresses concern as to how far a continual increase in investment and consumer expenditure, together with a sustained improvement in the employment situation, can be achieved to ensure that the mainly cyclical upswing will turn into a structural upward trend;

7.  Considers that the European economy has been strengthened by the main achievements of the economic and monetary union and the single market; calls for full completion of the internal market, particularly in financial services and the energy sector by means of rapid and complete implementation of the electricity and gas directives; accordingly, stresses the importance of investment in the infrastructures needed to achieve this objective; expects further economic stimuli from a European market in services that will guarantee service providers" access free of discrimination and the protection of labour and social security laws at the place of the service provision; urges the Member States, with regard to the latest enlargements, to maintain an open and free labour market that supports economic growth;

8.  Points out that a more permanent increase in economic growth potential in the European Union under the umbrella of the Lisbon Strategy requires the ongoing implementation of well-balanced reforms, including measures aimed at strengthening innovation, technological advance and human capital accumulation, removing remaining barriers hampering the operation of the internal market, and creating a more conducive environment for business activities in Member States;

9.  Draws attention, against the background of an expected decline in growth in the United States and hence in world trade, of potential external shocks, such as the abrupt adjustment of global imbalances with massive effects on exchange rates and financial markets, and of a possible further rise in the price of oil, to the need to support and strengthen the economic upswing by an economic policy improving the effectiveness in the markets of goods, services, labour and capital, that promotes growth and is equally geared to export and domestic demand;

10.  Is concerned about a euro exchange rate which could harm Europe's competitiveness as against the United States; expects the European Central Bank to monitor developments closely and to take appropriate measures in order to safeguard Europe's economic interests in the international financial system;

Encouraging the Member States to produce benchmark results

11.  Notes that the real economic growth in the European Union is characterised by old and new divergences, with the lowest growth rates in Portugal (1,2 % of GDP) and Italy (1,7 %), and high growth rates among the EU-15 in Spain (3,8 %), Greece (3,8 %) and, in particular, Sweden (4%), Finland (4,9 %) and Luxembourg (5,5 %); notes that the new Member States are registering particularly high growth rates in Slovakia (6,7 %), Lithuania (7,8 %), Estonia (10,5 %) and Latvia (11%); underlines that these divergences also reflect important structural differences, different domestic economic policies and demographic structures as well as asymmetric impacts of common policies, illustrating underlying risks to the European Union's internal cohesion; therefore stresses the need for policies that strengthen economic cohesion and thus foster the internal market and monetary union;

12.  Points out that, in the case of modernising efforts and economic performance, the Member States that are most successful are those that combine forward-looking and well-balanced structural reforms with higher-than-average investment in transport, information technology, research and development (R&D) as well as innovation, education, lifelong learning and care facilities, and the renewal of reliable social networks; notes that, for the most part, the same Member States have a highly efficient and transparent administration, an innovative entrepreneurial environment, budget surpluses, lower-than-average debt rates and high-quality public spending, while showing signs of a contribution by technical progress to the national growth result that is almost twice the size of the EU average; concludes that those Member States policies that seek to achieve high employment rates, including the employment of women and older workers, will enable the European Union to face with greater confidence present and future challenges such as an ageing population and growing competition as a result of globalisation;

13.  Emphasises in this connection that the most successful Member States with regard to their strategies of economic and social renewal can also be seen as role models for the successful implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, and encourages other Member States to be guided by them, even if the measures implementing the Lisbon Strategy must be developed to suit the situation of the relevant Member State and must remain the responsibility of that Member State;

14.  Notes, with regard to the Member States" national reform programmes, that, by and large, there are signs of greater harmonisation and also of a new commitment to direct policy towards objectives agreed throughout Europe; underlines, however, that Member States have different points of departure and show considerable variations as regards the content, pace and intensity of reforms across policy areas; takes the view that the reforms only respond to a limited extent to the present economic and employment situation, and that in many cases such central tasks as innovation, job creation, energy supply, a sustainable environment and better law-making are still not adequately incorporated into an integrated reform agenda; regrets that even in the fields of boosting the employment rate and active employment policy, progress and reform efforts are moving less rapidly than in other fields; welcomes, however, the efforts to strengthen responsibility at national and regional level ("ownership") and the involvement of the parliaments and social partners, and calls for the further expansion of such endeavours;

Strengthening potential – extending success: what still needs to be done

15.  Calls on the Member States to make good use of the new economic situation and the resulting margin for manoeuvre to promote a more sustainable form of economic growth, and one that is more closely geared towards quality objectives; underlines that a healthy and stable macro-economic environment requires improving the quality of public finances with budgets that are further consolidated, and an intelligent private and public investment policy that delivers forward-looking infrastructure and opens up tomorrow's markets today;

16.  Stresses that in order to benefit fully from the potential of the internal market and to strengthen Europe's position in the global market, current protectionist and anticompetitive tendencies must be curbed;

17.  Emphasises the role played by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in generating employment; accordingly, stresses the need to create a favourable climate for them through more favourable tax arrangements, a reduction in regulation and administrative burdens, improved access to financing, an improvement of their situation regarding business costs in terms of energy, transport, communications and services, improved access to information and communication technologies and increased investment in R&D and innovation;

18.  Stresses the importance to the European economy of excellent competitiveness as well as the need to sustain demand potential, and expects the economic policy actors to make further efforts to achieve a higher long-term growth rate in conditions of economic stability and sustained development also by effectively coordinating economic policies;

19.  Stresses in this context the importance of education, in particular tertiary education, to the strengthening of future growth potential and increasing skills levels, mobility and adaptability of European citizens; calls on Member States to step up efforts aimed at making European education systems more attractive, accessible and competitive;

20.  Recalls that the achievement of the Lisbon Objectives requires sufficient financial resources through the Community budget; regrets in this context the insufficiency of financial resources to achieving the said objectives;

21.  Takes the view that a simultaneous and coordinated approach by the Member States to growth-intensive spending, the stimulation of private investment and joint initiatives in the area of private and public cooperation can unleash substantial synergies, improve Europe's ability to meet the existing challenges in the fields of science and research, transport and communication, energy and environmental sustainability and will support the efficient allocation of resources throughout Europe; notes in this connection the importance of a coordinated fiscal framework including corporate tax arrangements favourable to SMEs and geared to generating employment; considers that Member States should improve the efficiency of tax and social contribution arrangements in order to ease job creation, particularly for specific social groups such as women, the long-term unemployed and older people; considers that competitive tax regimes should encourage the establishment of new businesses without undermining national funding capacity and should shift the burden from taxation on labour to environmental taxation, including fiscal incentives to support R&D and the use of renewable resources;

22.  Calls once again, in view of the forthcoming review of the Financial Framework, further to adapt the EU budget in the light of the Lisbon Objectives and in this way to support the full implementation of the Lisbon Strategy as a whole;

23.  Recognises that much progress has been made in shifting the focus of State aid to horizontal objectives; encourages Member States to continue this trend and further to align State aid with the Lisbon Objectives such as employment, innovation and sustainability;

24.  Underlines the need in the future to direct the competitiveness of European economies even more strongly towards an intelligent and sustainable economic process, to go hand-in-hand with the more efficient use of resources; recommends here in particular looking into the following measures at national level, which serve the aims not only of modernising the economy, developing new technologies and strengthening competitiveness, but also of environmental compatibility and opening up new areas of employment:

25.  Regards it as a priority to open up new chances of and opportunities for work for all sectors of society in a rapidly changing economy; underlines that the most vulnerable members of society are most at risk in this context and that priority should be given to promoting "active inclusion" and to creating better jobs more broadly; underlines also the need to balance new demands for workers" flexibility and readiness to retrain with new job prospects and the safeguarding of new forms of security ("flexicurity") also in order to promote chances better to combine professional and private life; calls in this connection for an improvement in the opportunity for participation in and access to the employment market by women, older workers, young people, the long-term unemployed and immigrants, for which the following measures, among others, should be more strongly pursued at national level in the fields of employment and education:

26.  Points out that in the interest of macro-economic stability, the rise in productivity must go hand in hand with fairer distribution of the fruits of growth and a strengthening of social cohesion; draws attention in this connection to the call for the rise in incomes to keep pace with medium-term growth in productivity; underlines the urgent need to strengthen a culture of encouragement and involvement as part of the concepts of corporate governance and corporate social responsibility;

27.  Stresses the need for enhanced and structured cooperation in the European Union and especially in the euro area, to strengthen governance and the process of European integration, as this is the only way to tackle the global economic challenges; calls, therefore, on the Council and the Commission to ensure that the annual statement on the euro area delivers a more practical range of instruments in future, to make it possible to hold a more detailed dialogue between the various EU bodies that are involved in strengthening the economic governance of the European Union; further takes the view that the Euro Group should focus on ensuring that when national budget plans are drawn up and implemented they are better balanced and harmonised, both in content and timing, as this would make a big contribution to seeing through an economic policy reform agenda; proposes in the framework of a more enhanced and structured cooperation within the euro area to invite the other Council formations concerned to participate in such cooperation;

Stimulating necessary institutional reforms

28.  Welcomes the Commission's new approach to following up the assessment of the national reform programmes by proposing country-specific recommendations to guide Member States and urges the European Council to approve these; underlines, in this context, the urgent need to strengthen the mutually reinforcing approach of the Integrated Guidelines which must be reflected in national reform policies; calls once again for the transparent exchange of best practices and the publication of an annual "league table" of Member States with the best and worst reform records by the Commission in the interest of learning from both successes and failures; points out, however, in this connection that a sufficient number of integrated indicators are needed to cover all the policy areas of the Lisbon Strategy;

29.  Regrets the still weak visibility of the Lisbon Strategy in the national politics of many Member States; takes the view that the mobilisation of all economic stakeholders is essential to ensuring its effective implementation; in particular, believes that a better involvement of social partners, national parliaments and civil society will increase the visibility of the Lisbon Strategy, enhance the quality of public debate on economic reforms, reinforce accountability and raise the awareness of public opinion about the need to coordinate closely economic policies with a view to addressing the main challenges posed by the ongoing globalisation process and to adopt a collective position to improve economic governance inside the European Union; urges the Member States to implement the Integrated Guidelines and the national reform programmes in the spirit of "ownership", in a committed way, with the enhanced involvement of the national parliaments and other interested actors such as the social partners, and requests a regular review of the relevance of the national reform programmes according to the "benchmarking" principle, including a broader consultation process in those Member States in which it is not yet the norm; expects the priorities of national reform programmes to be better reflected in the timetable as well as the content of national budget decisions;

30.  Welcomes the consolidation and integration of the guidelines for economic, structural and employment policy measures; repeats in this connection that the economic and structural policy guidelines must receive the same legislative status as the guidelines for employment policy measures and that an inter-institutional agreement must be drawn up in order to clarify Parliament's participation in this context;

31.  Expects, with a view to the forthcoming work on revising the Integrated Guidelines, to see a joint process of reflection between the EU institutions concerned and proposes an inter-institutional working party to be established after the Spring 2007 European Council; recommends the following aspects for improving implementation of the EU reform agenda for discussion and reflection:

32.  Regrets, once again, that no clear plan and code of practice has, to date, been agreed between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which would guarantee appropriate cooperation and the full involvement of the three EU institutions concerned in the appropriate further handling of the Integrated Guidelines as a key instrument of the Lisbon Strategy; calls in this connection on the Council and the Commission to submit forthwith proposals for the close cooperation of the three EU institutions concerned with a view to the impending revision of the Integrated Guidelines;

o
o   o

33.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

(1) OJ L 205, 6.8.2005, p. 21. (2) Autumn 2006, No 5/2006. (3) http://ec.europa.eu/growthandjobs/key/nrp2006_en.htm. (4) OJ C 117 E, 18.5.2006, p. 248.

European Parliament resolution on the situation in Darfur

P6_TA(2007)0052 RC-B6-0068/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the outcome of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 12 to 13 February 2007,

–   having regard to its previous resolutions on the situation in Darfur, and in particular those of 16 September 2004(1), 23 June 2005(2), 6 April 2006(3) and 28 September 2006(4),

–   having regard to UN Security Council Resolution 1706(2006) proposing a 22 000-strong peacekeeping force for Darfur,

–   having regard to the Darfur Peace Agreement signed in Abuja, Nigeria, on 5 May 2006,

–   having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is binding and applied without exception,

–   having regard to Rule 103(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   deeply concerned by the fact that the conflict in the Darfur region involving regular troops, pro-government militias and rebels has resulted in at least 400 000 deaths and created more than two and a half million refugees and displaced persons during the past three years, despite the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement on 5 May 2006 in Abuja, Nigeria,

B.   whereas the Government of Sudan and rebel groups agreed to a 60-day ceasefire on 11 January 2007, but indiscriminate attacks on civilians and aid workers are continuing unabated with what aid agencies are describing as "violence on a scale not seen before in Darfur"(5),

C.   whereas the Darfur conflict – together with impunity from prosecution – is increasingly affecting the stability of the Central African region and constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

D.   whereas the UN "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine provides that where "national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity," others have a responsibility to provide the protection needed,

E.   whereas the UN Security Council, in its Resolution 1706(2006), has authorised a new UN peacekeeping force of up to 22 500 soldiers and police officers to take over Darfur operations from the Africa Mission in Sudan (AMIS), while reaffirming its full respect for Sudanese sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity,

F.   whereas sexual violence against women and children has been recognised as a crime against humanity, but systematic rape continues to be used as a weapon of war by parties in the Darfur conflict and, despite numerous assurances by the Sudanese Government, sexual violence continues unabated,

G.   whereas the International Criminal Court (ICC) opened an investigation into crimes in Darfur in June 2005,

H.   whereas torture and forced conscription of adults and children have become a feature of the human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law in Darfur, with the victims of torture too scared to report the abuse to either AMIS or humanitarian workers for fear of retribution,

1.  Calls on the UN to act in line with its "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, basing its action on the failure of the Government of Sudan to protect its population in Darfur from war crimes and crimes against humanity, and also its failure to provide humanitarian assistance to the population;

2.  Calls therefore on the UN, even in the absence of consent or agreement from the Sudanese Government, clearly to set a date for deployment of a UN-supported peacekeeping force in Darfur, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1706(2006), and the UN Agreement of 16 November 2006, in order to secure humanitarian aid corridors without any further delay to support the increasingly isolated and suffering population in the region;

3.  Calls on the governments of the Member States of the European Union, the Council and the Commission to assume their responsibilities and make every possible effort to provide effective protection for the people of Darfur from a humanitarian disaster;

4.  Deplores the Sudanese Government's support for the Janjaweed militia and its bombing of the Darfur region, amounting to a clear and flagrant breach of the Darfur Peace Agreement;

5.  Calls on the international community, including the Member States of the European Union, to make equipment available in the region for the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Darfur established by UN Security Council Resolution 1591(2005);

6.  Calls on the EU institutions and other international actors to apply sanctions that target any side, including the Sudanese Government, that violates the ceasefire or attacks civilians, peacekeepers or humanitarian operations and to take all necessary action to help end impunity by enforcing and implementing the UN Security Council sanction regime through targeted economic sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, as the EU has done in the past with other countries(6); underlines that sanctions against Sudan should also include the threat of an oil embargo;

7.  Calls on the EU institutions and the international community to reconvene peace talks to improve the content of the Darfur Peace Agreement and make it acceptable to all parties; calls on international actors to hold accountable all parties to the resulting agreement and urges all parties to the conflict in Darfur to show their commitment to a peaceful solution to the crisis by implementing that agreement without delay;

8.  Calls on the Sudanese Government to cooperate fully with the ICC in order to end impunity;

9.  Calls on China to use its significant leverage responsibly in the region to hold the Government of Sudan to its commitments under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 9 January 2005 and the Darfur Peace Agreement; further calls on China to cease exporting arms to Sudan and to cease blocking decisions on targeted sanctions against the Government of Sudan in the UN Security Council;

10.  Notes the UN Human Rights Council decision to send a High-Level Mission to Darfur to investigate human rights abuses in the region, which should provide a basis for action to bring to account any perpetrators of such crimes, and underlines the need for independence and credibility of the Mission team; is critical of the delays caused by visas not being granted to members of this Mission;

11.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, the Heads of State and Government of the Member States, the Government and Parliament of Sudan, the United Nations Security Council, the Heads of State and Government of the Arab League, the governments of the ACP countries, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly and the African Union institutions.

(1) OJ C 140 E, 9.6.2005, p. 153. (2) OJ C 133 E, 8.6.2006, p. 96. (3) OJ C 293 E, 2.12.2006, p. 320. (4) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0387. (5) "Humanitarian agencies warn Darfur operations approaching breaking point", press release from Action Against Hunger, CARE International, Oxfam International, Norwegian Refugee Council, World Vision and Save the Children on outcome of AU Summit, 29 January 2007. (6) Belarus, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, North Korea, Moldova, Burma, Zimbabwe.

European Parliament resolution on the EIB Annual Report for 2005 (2006/2269(INI))

P6_TA(2007)0053 A6-0011/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Articles 266 and 267 of the EC Treaty, establishing the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment Bank, annexed to the Treaty,

–   having regard to the EIB Group Activity Report 2005 and its Corporate Operational Plan for the period 2006 to 2008, the European Investment Fund (EIF) Annual Report 2005, the Audit Committee Annual Reports 2005 and the response from the Management Committee, the Operations Evaluation Overview Report 2005, and the EIB President's hearing before the relevant Parliament committee on 20 June 2005,

–   having regard to the European Action for Growth, endorsed in the Presidency conclusions following the Brussels European Council on 12 and 13 December 2003,

–   having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2005 on the activity report for 2003 of the European Investment Bank(1), and its resolution of 4 April 2006 on the situation of the European economy: preparatory report on the broad economic policy guidelines for 2006(2),

–   having regard to the EIB's Environmental Report 2004,

–   having regard to the EIB's publication, the Social Assessment of Projects outside the European Union: the approach of the European Investment Bank, of 2 October 2006,

–   having regard to the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (the Aarhus Convention), under which the Community committed itself to guaranteeing "the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters",

–   having regard to Rules 112(2) and 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0011/2007),

A.   whereas the EIB is a public bank with a political dimension, established under of the EC Treaty as the main financial institution charged with achieving the European Union's objectives,

B.   whereas the growth potential of the European economy continues to be fairly low, at around 2 %, which is much lower than that achieved by other areas of the world, and is insufficient to provide employment for the more than 12 million unemployed Europeans and for the development of an enlarged Europe,

C.   whereas in 2005 the EIB granted loans worth EUR 47 400 million, of which EUR 42 300 million was allocated to the Member States, EUR 2 000 million to the acceding countries, and EUR 3 100 million to associated countries, and whereas some EUR 9 000 million was distributed through the intermediary banks,

D.   whereas out of the loans granted by the EIB Group, EUR 34 000 million was allocated to economic and social cohesion, EUR 10 700 million to the Innovation 2010 initiative, EUR 12 300 to environmental protection, EUR 8 200 million to the development of the Trans-European Networks, EUR 4 200 million to support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), EUR 3 600 million as a contribution to European external cooperation and development aid policy, EUR 400 million to venture capital funds, and EUR 1 700 million to guarantees for SMEs,

E.   whereas the Commission's Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (2005-2008) (COM(2005)0141) point to the need to promote a more entrepreneurial culture and the creation of new enterprises, and whereas one way of achieving those objectives is to improve access to finance for SMEs,

F.   whereas SMEs in the European Union, which total almost 23 million and which comprise half of the EU economy and employ two-thirds of European workers, have an important part to play in economic and social cohesion,

G.   whereas a new European energy policy is needed in order to cope with high energy prices, guarantee security of supply, and halt climate change,

1.  Congratulates the EIB on its activity report for 2005, on its increased transparency to the public and on the improvement of its control systems; encourages the EIB to continue with its work in developing the European economy;

Strategy and activities

2.  Welcomes the fact that the EIB has adopted the Lisbon Strategy objectives on growth and employment and welcomes the changes made by the EIB in its work with a view to achieving those objectives; considers that the question arises as to whether the EIB's resources are sufficient to achieve those objectives;

3.  Notes that in the review of EIB strategy carried out in 2005, encouraging economic and social cohesion within the European Union continued to be the EIB's main aim; therefore calls for the EIB's activity in this field to focus on the least developed regions;

4.  Urges the EIB, with reference to the Innovation 2010 initiative, to fund projects that are directly relevant to innovation; with regard to education and training, calls for the policy goal of the European Union to become a knowledge-based society to be fully supported, with a particular emphasis on innovation-related education projects, both in higher and basic education in order to improve Europe's human potential; supports the EIB in its efforts to bring less developed areas into the knowledge-based economy;

5.  Congratulates the EIB on having achieved its aim of devoting between 30 and 35 % of its individual loans within the European Union to projects intended to protect or improve the natural or urban environment; notes that out of the total loans made within the European Union, 60 % were granted in relation to the urban environment (public transport and urban renewal), while only 20 % were intended for research into energy efficiency and the development of renewable forms of energy; urges the EIB, therefore, to distribute funds for environmental protection more coherently;

6.  Welcomes the EIB's intention to draw up a new energy action plan incorporating the new EU energy objectives; calls on the EIB to adopt more ambitious financing objectives both for renewable energies and for programmes to improve energy efficiency, above all in the new Member States and in the SME sector, where there is more scope for improvement;

7.  Congratulates the EIB on its role as a financial catalyst, above all in relation to loans in support of public-private partnerships promoting private sector participation in financing the Trans-European Networks; calls for an EU guarantee instrument to be developed specifically for Trans-European Transport Network projects in order to cover the risk that revenue might fall short of the expected levels in the initial operating phase; stresses the importance of improving the dimension of energy networks to and among Member States to facilitate the creation of the internal market for energy supply and distribution;

8.  Considers that EIB activities should reflect the needs of an enlarged European Union; points out that the EIB does not have a permanent delegation in the Baltic Sea region, which would cover the Baltic States, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and EEA-EFTA countries;

9.  Calls for greater consistency in the EIB's external mandate both with regard to the sufficiency of funds for the whole period of the new mandate and their distribution by geographical area; points out that the loans granted to Latin America are insufficient, representing only 2,5 % of those devoted to projects outside the European Union; welcomes the new initiative combining EIB loans with EU grant aid for regional infrastructure projects in Africa as well as other initiatives that support an African development agenda that must be developed on the basis of sustainability criteria, in environmental, social and economic terms; urges the EIB, in conjunction with global loans for Mediterranean partner countries, to implement technical assistance in order to help develop and reform the local financial sector;

10.  Congratulates the EIB Board of Governors, which in 2005 made support for SMEs one of its five priority objectives; supports the EIB in its effort to develop financial instruments appropriate to the needs of SMEs, to the end that global loans to SMEs represent more than 50 % of total global loans every year;

Methods of operation

11.  Welcomes the closer cooperation with the Commission in the new programmes which aim to increase the efficiency of expenditure thanks to the experience acquired by the EIB, in particular the programme for Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS);

12.  Points out that a range of new financial instruments managed by the EIB and the EIF will have a multiplier effect on non-reimbursable aid, and is delighted that the initiative for Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises (JEREMIE) has come into operation, since it could produce a multiplier effect of up to ten times the size of the Structural Fund budget through the operation of the EIF serving to turn subsidies into a range of financial products aimed at SMEs;

13.  Considers that the new cooperation and financing arrangements must be evaluated carefully with a view to correcting any administrative obstacles that may be involved;

14.  Points out to the EIB that its loans must not be a substitute, under conditions more advantageous to the intermediary financial institutions, for loans which in any event would have been granted by the private sector;

15.  Calls on the Court of Auditors to ensure that the conditions governing the loans and guarantees involving EU budget resources granted by the EIB do not serve to enable certain privileged parties to benefit indirectly from unwarranted assistance when they could obtain financing on the market;

16.  Calls on the EIB to conduct a detailed study on the real contribution of the EIB investment to regional development, once also analysed the effects of EU policies and to introduce appropriate indicators, as recommended by its own Operations Evaluation department;

17.  Recommends that the EIB further increase the possibilities of access to its finance, above all for SMEs, by increasing the number of financial institutions with the appropriate expertise and lending capacities to support EU priorities, acting as intermediaries in each country, which at the same time would improve the conditions for the end recipients;

18.  Recommends that in its next annual report, the EIB place special emphasis on its relationship with the banks which, at national level, specialise in granting loans to SMEs and recalls that good cooperation between the EIB and those banks can only be beneficial to the SMEs;

19.  Considers that a combination of funds provided by the EIB with authorised State aid should be encouraged to benefit SMEs;

Transparency and performance

20.  Calls on the EIB to explain more clearly its evaluation criteria when selecting projects for funding and to submit an evaluation of its operations in terms of economic growth and employment; recommends that the EIB publish its information on the investment projects in which it is involved, to encourage private investors to participate in the possible financing of those projects;

21.  Recommends that the EIB lay down more clear-cut criteria to govern the ultimate allocation of its global loans; and calls on the EIB to establish a transparent procedure for determining and assessing how the loans have been used by intermediary banks, in particular with a view to ascertaining whether the quality of EIB loans really benefits the end recipients;

22.  Calls on the EIB to ensure that its operational standards are consistent with international standards and best practices; and to establish a transparent participation mechanism to involve civil society organisations and other interested parties in the formulation of strengthened EIB social standards;

23.  Calls on the EIB to set up a new environmental framework based on clear, binding and enforceable minimum standards, which would provide an opportunity for the EIB to make its values and standards clear to all stakeholders, including local communities;

24.  Congratulates the EIB on developing its control system to give greater weight to ex-post evaluation of operations; welcomes the publication of a summary of evaluations carried out by the Operations Evaluation department; reiterates its request made in paragraph 14 of its resolution of 22 April 2004 on the activity report for 2002 of the European Investment Bank(3) that the EIB should provide information on failed projects, in order to learn from such failures;

25.  Notes the EIB's intention to associate itself voluntarily with the establishment of an international solvency ratio (Basel II); calls on the EIB to communicate the methodologies applied and the constituent components of this ratio; calls for a study on the way that the application of Basel II is supervised;

26.  Welcomes the EIB's focus on transparency, outlined in its Public Disclosure Policy of 28 March 2006;

27.  Urges the EIB to continue to improve its communications policy; calls for the main contents of the EIB web page to be translated into all the EU languages;

28.  Calls on the EIB to continue providing Parliament and the public an annual summary of measures taken to improve its performance, in line with Parliament's previous resolutions;

o
o   o

29.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the European Investment Bank.

(1) OJ C 320 E, 15.12.2005, p. 66. (2) OJ C 293 E 2.12.2006, p. 163. (3) OJ C 104E, 30.4.2004, p. 1019.

European Parliament resolution on the macro-economic impact of the increase in the price of energy (2006/2247(INI))

P6_TA(2007)0054 A6-0001/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission report 'European energy and transport: Scenarios on high oil and gas prices', published in September 2006,

–   having regard to the Commission Communication, 'Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential' (COM(2006)0545),

–   having regard to the presidency conclusions of the Göteborg European Council of 15 and 16 June 2001, and the Brussels European Councils of 23 and 24 March 2006 and 15 and 16 June 2006,

–   having regard to the conclusions of the Hampton Court informal meeting of the EU Heads of State or Government on 27 October 2005, which marked the inception of the EU's new energy policy,

–   having regard to its resolution of 26 February 2004 on the situation of the European economy, report on the broad guidelines for economic policies(1),

–   having regard to its resolution of 23 March 2006 on security of energy supply in the European Union(2),

–   having regard to its resolution of 1 June 2006 on Energy efficiency or doing more with less - Green Paper(3), in particularly in regard to its call for Commission and national energy efficiency action plans,

–   having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2006 on a European Strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy - Green Paper(4),

–   having regard to the Commission's integrated energy and climate change package to cut emissions for the 21st century, published on 10 January 2007,

–   having regard to the Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, published in October 2006,

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on International Trade and of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0001/2007),

A.   whereas oil-price increases have an impact on the EU as a net importer of oil, reducing the growth of gross domestic product (GDP), employment and investment, and increasing inflationary pressure and interest rates,

B.   whereas higher oil prices would undoubtedly drive up the prices of other fuels, exacerbating the adverse macro-economic impact of increasing oil prices,

C.   whereas while previous oil price shocks were caused by major disruptions to the oil supply, the present oil price increase is triggered mainly by a substantial growth of demand for oil in Asia and the United States and geopolitical instability in the oil-exporting regions,

D.   whereas uncertainties concerning the balance between supply of and demand for oil have further increased oil prices and the volatility of the market,

E.   whereas cheap oil prices have framed the world economy for more than 50 years, and whereas the prospect of long-standing high prices already contributes to fundamental changes in the economy; whereas if no measures are taken, the proportion of Europe's dependency on energy imports may increase from 50 to 70 % between now and 2030, with 94% of oil imported;

F.   whereas any measures taken by the EU to reduce its dependence on oil imports must address climate change; whereas the above-mentioned Stern Review reasserts that the EU's energy package will be a key element of the combating of climate change; whereas the Stern Review also highlights the massive economic opportunities that could be gained by the EU if it took the lead in combating climate change,

1.  Expresses its concern that in recent years, the development of oil prices has been characterised by major volatility and by an abrupt increase from a level of USD 12 per barrel before 2000, to USD 79 on 8 August 2006, curbing the trajectory of Europe's economic recovery; underlines the fact that the recent price increase is similar in real terms to changes that occurred in the previous phase of the mid-1970s to mid-1980s, and that there are additional underlying circumstances and challenges;

2.  Believes that these perceptions have also been reinforced by fears about the adequacy of resources in the future, with some analysts predicting an imminent physical resource constraint while others, mainly within the oil industry, presenting a reassuring picture of oil reserves; points out that perceptions over future scarcity affect long-term market prices;

3.  Notes that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find new oil sources and that each new barrel is more expensive in terms of exploration and production; further notes that huge investments in the oil sector are needed to enhance capacities for production and refining in order to cope with increased demand;

4.  Notes the different nature of the present oil price increase compared to those that took place in the past, which were supply-side driven and transitory; whereas the present oil-price increase has a substantial element caused by rapidly growing demand such as China but also by high consumption in the United States, alongside uncertainties in oil-producing regions, and supply fall-outs caused by lack of investment in infrastructure; consequently the recent price increase has a substantially permanent component;

5.  Is concerned that the demand for oil is rising not only in the energy sector but also in other sectors, such as the petrochemical sector; believes that oil should not be used for electricity generation;

6.  Notes the highly diverging estimates and opinions concerning the remaining oil reserves and the time when the oil peak will be reached; urges in this respect continuing improvements in the data transparency on energy statistics, especially in respect of oil stock levels; underlines, however that Europe will increasingly have to meet the challenge of lasting high and volatile oil prices and the economic impact connected to them, and that new resources are tending to be smaller and more expensive to develop and are increasingly offshore, and the costs of exploration, development and production will rise, making it more urgent to switch to alternative energy sources and to develop energy-saving and renewable technologies;

Recessive effects

7.  Underlines the tangible effect of oil price increases for the EU as a net importer of oil, in that they reduce GDP growth, investment, and employment, and increase inflationary pressure and interest rates;

8.  Stresses that, depending on the differing degrees of oil dependency and production structures, the impact of oil price increases varies from one Member State to another and that the consequences are most strongly felt in countries that are highly dependent on oil imports, such as, on the one hand, the euro zone, in which GDP is estimated to have dropped by at least 0,5%, and, on the other, the new Members States, due to the greater energy-intensity of their economies;

9.  Is worried about the upward pressure of higher energy prices on consumer prices, increasing the harmonised index of consumer prices inflation to 2,3% in the euro zone and the EU, points out the increase in industrial producer prices by 5,9% in July 2006 in the euro zone while secondary effects of the surge in oil prices on wages continue to be largely absent with moderate wage increases; expresses its concerns about the negative effects of oil price increases on household demand due to reduced disposable income;

10.  Expresses its concern about the social consequences of increased housing, heating and transport costs in particular with regard to the low-income, poor and vulnerable segments of the population, and urges Member States to adopt appropriate measures to ensure the affordability and access to these services in spite of the oil price increases, in order to ensure mobility and avoid social exclusion and pauperisation;

11.  Notes that the ECB has already raised interest rates six times since December 2005, expresses its concerns about the increasing unpredictability for SMEs of the cost of loans and the negative impact on investment and employment in the EU; regrets that inflationary pressure due to the rise in oil prices, combined with possible second-round effects, might ultimately make monetary tightening inevitable;

12.  Stresses the risks to growth that an increase in interest rates would pose, in the context of a fragile recovery, and points to the risks associated with changes in the euro exchange rate and with oil prices, these being factors which played a part in the weak growth seen in 2005, owing to their impact on household purchasing power; calls for reflection about the feasibility of and opportunities for the denomination of oil and oil derivatives in the euro zone in euros rather than of dollars;

13.  Notes that uncertainty surrounding the future balance between demand and supply has created incentives for new players on financial markets, such as hedging or financial derivatives linked to oil or other energy prices; notes that it is recognised that in some cases these activities may have magnified trends unfavourably, but on the other hand they may contribute to adding liquidity to the market thus reducing volatility; suggests that appropriate ways for increasing transparency of these activities should be sought in order to address concerns about their ongoing evolution;

The transport sector

14.  Notes that the impact of the oil price increases differs considerably from one sector to another, with the transport sector, which accounts for 56 % of total oil consumption in the EU, together with the housing sector, being those most affected, while other sectors have successfully reduced oil dependency through improvements in energy efficiency and changes in the fuel mix; stresses that those two sectors (transport and housing) constitute the first call on household expenditure, and that the oil price rise increases purchasing power inequalities, to the detriment of the lowest-income households;

15.  Calls for a comprehensive EU strategy to phase out fossil fuels in the transport sector, which would lead to a progressive reduction in EU dependency on oil and the progressive use of clean energies for transport;

16.  Believes that transport fuel supplies could be expanded by facilitating the production of unconventional oil and liquid fuels based on natural gas or coal where this is economically reasonable; supports the development and production of alternative vehicles and fuels , such as biofuels, hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles and hybrid vehicles; also supports efforts to find innovative solutions for the management of transport systems in general, including measures related to vehicle energy efficiency;

Balance of trade; global imbalances

17.  Points out the adverse effect of the oil price increase on the balance of trade for oil-importing countries, in that it redistributes wealth to the oil-exporting countries and turns them into major players in the context of global imbalances and the recycling of petrodollars, already resulting in the accumulation of substantial foreign assets;

18.  Welcomes the fact that the recycling of petrol dollars by the oil exporters has benefited the euro zone with a positive impact on investment from abroad and increased demand for euro-zone goods and services, which partly offsets the dampening effects of the oil price increases;

Competition

19.  Recalls the urgency to ensure fair energy prices in domestic energy markets; notes in this context that energy markets remain national to a large extent and are dominated by a few companies, both private and public, which frequently also own the infrastructure; calls on the Commission and the national competition authorities and regulators to pay special attention to energy companies;

20.  Calls for the completion of the internal energy market by undertaking measures to overcome the prevailing divergences as regards the powers of regulators, the absence of a European energy regulator to examine cross-border issues, the absence of a priority interconnection plan, grid rules, balancing and gas storage regimes;

21.  Emphasises that unbundling the infrastructure from suppliers is essential for the proper functioning of national markets and the internal market, and for incentives to invest in infrastructure;

22.  Notes, furthermore, that increased concentration in the internal market may aggravate existing distortions, thus requiring the improvement of Member States' and the EU's regulatory capabilities in order to guarantee consumer rights and compliance with EU energy efficiency objectives;

23.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to include a high level of energy efficiency among public procurement selection criteria; considers that in the context of the revision of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection, steps should be taken further to encourage investment in energy efficiency and diversification measures;

Europe should act now

24.  Stresses that if no measures are taken now, Europe's dependence on energy imports will increase from 50 to 70 % by 2030, of which 94% will comprise oil imports, aggravating the negative impact of the oil price increases and volatility on Europe's economy;

25.  Calls on the Commission, when assessing State aid, to take account of the need for investment in innovation generated by the energy context and to ensure that new aid does not result in distortions of competition;

26.  Points out the necessity for massive investment in energy infrastructure and supply over the coming years, calls for an in-depth Community-wide debate on different energy sources, taking into account all costs related to energy production, storage, distribution, transport, consumption and supply security as well as safety and waste aspects and its contribution to climate change, in particular in regard to CO2 emissions; calls on the Commission to engage in impact assessments on different energy sources and portfolio mixes according to these parameters;

27.  Recalls its resolution of 26 February 2004, which already stressed "the importance of reducing Europe's dependence on oil imports, which constitutes a heavy burden from the political and price volatility point of view", welcomed "technology platforms such as the European Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy", encouraged "further investment in the most cost-effective forms of renewable energy, which [would] reduce the volatility of the cost per unit of energy, increase the security of energy supply, be less harmful to the environment, and potentially trigger an industrial revolution similar to the IT-led industrial revolution in the US";

28.  Underlines the fact that emerging and developing countries and those experiencing transformation are particularly negatively affected by oil price increases due to the high energy intensity and low energy efficiency of their economies and stresses the importance of the sustainable development agenda in the EU's foreign, trade and development policy;

29.  Points out the potential of the promising markets for renewable energy and energy efficiency increasing technologies; stresses the positive growth and employment rates of the renewable energy sector; and warns against the risk of losing market leadership in environmental technologies to the United States and to highly skilled emerging economies; points out that CO2 building restoration programmes are highly significant with regard to energy savings;

30.  Notes that European sources of oil still exist; believes that maximising the exploitation of indigenous sources should be seen as an important (albeit temporary) means of countering the increasing volume of oil imported into Europe;

31.  Points out the need to orientate energy infrastructure towards combined heat and power and decentralised energy production;

32.  Calls on the Commission and the Council to elaborate a detailed plan to reduce the EU's dependence on oil imports and a shift towards clean energy; urges that measures be adopted to improve energy efficiency; recalls that energy efficiency is usually by far the cheapest way to cut carbon dioxide emissions and enhance energy security;

33.  Welcomes the Commission's Action Plan for Energy Efficiency as a key contribution to saving energy and hence reducing energy dependency;

34.  Emphasises the need for energy efficiency policies and actions to be addressed properly in the Structural and Cohesion Funds and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme(5); welcomes the proposal in the Action Plan for Energy Efficiency to leverage private financing through these instruments;

35.  Calls for an integrated EU emergency mechanism for the security of supply with an increase of the minimum oil stock in the EU from 90 to 120 consumption days, and to develop a minimum gas stock of at least 90 days; regrets, in this context, that the Commission did not propose increasing and sharing the emergency oil and gas stock within the framework of its integrated energy and climate change package of 10 January 2007;

36.  Suggests that the weekly publication (based on data in the public domain, as in the United States) of European stocks of oil and oil products, and of imports and exports, all broken down by type of product (crude oil, petrol, diesel, heating oil and others), would give a better picture of the pressures on the world market, show up the level of European consumption, reduce the tendency of market operators to gravitate towards American stocks, and thereby help reduce the volatility of oil prices.

37.  Recalls its demand that multilateral banks and public financial institutions should create energy efficiency funds granting money for energy efficiency projects; takes the view that energy efficiency objectives should also be integrated into other sectoral policies, especially fiscal, transport and cohesion policy; believes that innovative financing schemes and contractual tools, such as micro-credit and joint ventures between private companies and municipalities, should be encouraged in order actively to involve local partners and decision makers;

38.  Underlines the important role of the European Investment Bank (EIB) in promoting investment in clean energy; welcomes the EIB's commitment to strengthen its contribution to infrastructure investments, including energy security and renewable energies and trans-European networks, and the doubling of the share of investments in renewable energy projects from 7 to 15 %; stresses the urgency of a diversification of energy sources and the commitment of the EU to sustainable development and to its international commitment to fulfil the Kyoto Protocol; encourages the EIB to integrate the criteria relating to CO2 emissions into its selection criteria and to adopt an even more ambitious target for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects;

Taxation

39.  Notes the increase in tax revenues on energy due to recent oil price increases; underlines the importance of adequate fiscal policies including those in the housing sector, as a means of reducing economic dependence on fossil fuels, addressing climate change and creating incentives to increase investments in and discriminate in favour of energy efficiency, renewable energy and environmentally friendly products; stresses that tax systems should also adopt the 'polluter pays' principle;

40.  Stresses that the transport sector accounts for 56 % of total oil consumption in the EU and is most affected by oil price increases; calls for a framework directive for energy efficiency in transport; stresses that a modal shift is an important means of diminishing oil usage; encourages the harmonisation of passenger car legislation, including an EU-wide harmonised CO2 based vehicle taxation with certification and labelling procedures and fiscal incentives to diversify energy sources; calls for a comprehensive strategy to phase out the use of fossil fuels in the transport sector, and to promote the market penetration of low CO2 emissions, the use of the latest technology biofuels or bio-hydrogen-fuelled vehicles; stresses that the introduction of biofuels must not result in the release of the automotive industry from its obligation to manufacture more economical vehicles which produce fewer pollutants;

Common energy policy: energy diplomacy

41.  Welcomes the dialogue and cooperation of the EU with oil exporting countries to decrease uncertainties on both the demand and supply side, to facilitate investment and economic and energy diversification decisions on both sides, and to create a climate of trust and reliability;

42.  Notes that energy policy, and in particular security of energy supply, must become an integral part of the EU's common foreign, trade development and security policies and calls for a common strategy to secure and diversify supplies and transit routes, assuring solidarity within the EU; suggests that partnerships and cooperation agreements with oil-producing regions be used to create a stable but open regulatory framework in supply countries, to foster investment in exploitation and transport infrastructure and to secure long-term supply;

43.  Stresses the importance of including in the new energy diplomacy of the EU, a constructive dialogue with countries that are oil exporters, countries that are part of the transit route and all major consumers of energy, and, notably, emerging and developing economies on energy efficiency and energy conservation, with the aim of setting minimum efficiency standards for global goods, to develop solidarity in energy policy, and to fight against environmental pollution and climate change;

44.  Recalls the crucial importance of ensuring security and sustainability in EU energy supply; stresses the twin role that adequate market regulation and energy diplomacy should play in creating a stable framework for the supply of energy;

45.  Calls on the Commission to investigate measures to reduce the impact of peak oil on the citizens of the EU, including an analysis of policy proposals such as an oil depletion protocol, which would help ease the transition towards the elimination of the use of fossil fuels;

46.  Welcomes the role played by the EU Emission Trading Scheme in providing incentives to reduce energy consumption; calls for the scheme to be extended to include the aviation sector; and calls for the Commission to play its part in building a global emission trading scheme;

47.  Recognises that sustained higher energy prices will put pressure on production processes that rely on raw materials from a variety of geographically distant locations; calls on the Commission to provide a full analysis of the implications of higher energy prices and peak oil for trade flows as part of its work on trade and competitiveness;

48.  Stresses the importance of fostering a well-functioning world market in oil and gas, in particular through WTO rules and guidelines; considers that such an approach would make it possible to make an important contribution to energy efficiency and thus reduce upward pressure on energy prices;

49.  Stresses the necessity for more active involvement of the World Trade Organisation in energy policy and the need to work towards an agreement between the EU and the members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries with a view to keeping the increase of energy prices under control;

50.  Calls for the establishment of a genuine Euro-Mediterranean energy market to be given a central role; notes with interest the desire expressed by the Commission, on the occasion of the conference on external energy policy held on 20 and 21 November 2006, to ensure that North Africa and the Middle East occupy an important position in its external energy policy, and hopes that these statements will be followed up by concrete action;

o
o   o

51.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

(1) OJ C 98 E, 23.4.2004, p. 162. (2) OJ C 292 E, 1.12.2006, p. 112. (3) OJ C 298 E, 8.12.2006, p. 273. (4) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0603. (5) Decision No 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24. October 2006 establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 to 2013) (OJ L 310, 9.11.2006, p. 15).

European Parliament resolution on the dialogue between the Chinese Government and Envoys of the Dalai Lama

P6_TA(2007)0055 RC-B6-0051/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to its resolution of 26 October 2006 on Tibet(1),

–   having regard to its resolution of 7 September 2006 on EU-China relations(2),

–   having regard to the statement made by the Presidency on 22 February 2006 that the European Union strongly supports the dialogue between the Government of the People's Republic of China and Envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and hopes that both parties will be willing to address, in good faith, substantive issues in order to find pragmatic solutions which can contribute to a peaceful and sustainable settlement for Tibet that both sides can agree upon,

–   having regard to the 15 December 2005 statement by Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission, on behalf of the Commissioner for External Relations, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, that the Commission hopes that a solution to the Tibet question will soon be found that is compatible with Chinese sovereignty and respects the Tibetan population, and that the only way of attaining this ultimate goal is by means of a peaceful process based on open and direct dialogue that is not subject to any precondition,

–   having regard to the previous five rounds of dialogue between the Government of the People's Republic of China and Envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, launched in September 2002,

–   having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   welcoming the commitment of the Government of the People's Republic of China and His Holiness the Dalai Lama to resolve the Tibet question through a process of dialogue,

B.   whereas there are differences on substantive issues, and whereas in particular the two parties have been unable to reach a common understanding on the historical relationship between Tibet and China,

C.   having regard to the concerns of the Government of the People's Republic of China for the unity and stability of China and to the European Union's adherence to a "one China" policy,

D.   having regard to the Dalai Lama's consistent statements that he is not seeking independence but genuine devolved autonomy for Tibet,

E.   reaffirming that the common ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural identity of the Tibetan people is to be respected and that and the aspirations of the Tibetan people towards a unified administrative system are to be encouraged,

F.   whereas on 17 January 2007 in Beijing the negotiations on a new EU-China Partnership and Cooperation Framework Agreement officially began,

G.   whereas the Dalai Lama has expressed the wish to make a pilgrimage to China and whereas the Tibetan Parliament in Exile has requested a meeting between the President of China and His Holiness the Dalai Lama which would build confidence between the peoples of Tibet and China as well as in the international community,

1.  Urges the Government of the People's Republic of China and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, notwithstanding their differences on certain substantive issues, to resume and continue their dialogue, without preconditions and in a forward-looking manner that allows for pragmatic solutions to be reached which respect the territorial integrity of China and fulfil the aspirations of the Tibetan people;

2.  Welcomes the laws and regulations on regional ethnic autonomy adopted by the Government of the People's Republic of China, but is concerned that many of these laws contain conditions that impede or undermine their implementation;

3.  Calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States to actively support the strengthening of the dialogue and, in the absence of tangible results on substantive issues and in consultation with both parties, assess what further role the European Union could play to facilitate a negotiated solution for Tibet, including through the appointment of an EU Special Representative for Tibet;

4.  Calls on the High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union to include in the annual CFSP report to Parliament information on the development of the dialogue between the Government of the People's Republic of China and Envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in 2007 and thereafter;

5.  Calls on the Commission to raise the question of Tibet and the resumption of talks between the two sides during the negotiations on the new EU-China Partnership and Cooperation Framework Agreement and report to Parliament on the development of the dialogue between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in 2007 and thereafter;

6.  Calls on the Council Presidency to adopt a declaration indicating how the EU could facilitate progress towards a peaceful and negotiated solution for Tibet;

7.  Calls on the Council, the Commission, and the governments of the Member States to collaborate with the United States and other non-EU countries on efforts to facilitate the dialogue between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Dalai Lama;

8.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the President, Government and Parliament of the People's Republic of China and His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

(1) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2006)0465. (2) OJ C 305 E, 14.12.2006, p. 219.

European Parliament resolution on refugees from Iraq

P6_TA(2007)0056 RC-B6-0052/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to its previous resolutions on the right of refugees to international protection,

–   having regard to its previous resolutions on the situation in Iraq,

–   having regard to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 (the Refugee Convention) and to the UN Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1967,

–   having regard to the urgent appeal by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) of 7 February 2007 to increase international support for those countries hosting refugees fleeing Iraq, as well as to the UNHCR Return Advisory and Position on International Protection Needs of Iraqis outside Iraq of 18 December 2006 and to the UNHCR document of 8 January 2007 entitled 'Supplementary Appeal – Iraq Situation Response',

–   having regard to the Guiding Principles of Internal Displacement issued by the UN Secretary General's Special Representative on Internally Displaced Persons on 11 February 1998,

–   having regard to Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted(1) (the Qualification Directive),

–   having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas violence and criminal activities in Iraq include armed robberies, kidnappings for ransom, harassment, the killing of persons involved in the political process or reconstruction activities, ethnic cleansing, sabotage attacks against civilian infrastructure such as electricity or oil pipelines and full-scale attacks involving indiscriminate bombs and/or other explosives against civilians, and whereas, as a result, hundreds of thousands of people are being forcibly displaced within the country and abroad, primarily to Jordan and Syria but also to Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran and further afield, in an upheaval unprecedented in the Middle East,

B.   whereas many groups continue to suffer persecution in Iraq, particularly professionals, women, Iraqis employed by foreign contractors, the UN or other international organisations including non-governmental organisations, and ethnic and religious minorities, such as Christians, Jews and Mandeans; whereas internally displaced persons (IDPs) are frequently victims of human rights violations originating from ethno-religious differences, or of a political and criminal order; whereas the security of third-country nationals, stateless persons and particularly the approximately 34 000 Palestinian refugees and thousands of refugees from Turkey, Iran and Syria in Iraq has drastically deteriorated,

C.   whereas the United Nations estimates that 1,8 million Iraqis are displaced within Iraq and up to 2 million Iraqis have fled the country,

D.   whereas 50 000 people try to leave Iraq every month and whereas the neighbouring countries have restricted access for refugees to seek asylum, forcing many to return to Iraq or remain trapped at the borders,

E.   whereas the refugees receive sparse humanitarian assistance from UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross, but conditions for refugees and other displaced Iraqis are increasingly appalling, with limited supplies of water, food, fuel and medicines, and whereas humanitarian organisations are appealing for adequate funding to respond to the increased needs inside Iraq and in its neighbouring countries,

F.   whereas several countries hosting Iraqi refugees are restricting entry, as well as imposing restrictive stay requirements, such as reducing the temporary protection regime (TPR) and/or making the renewal of their visas so difficult that most Iraqis quickly lose their legal status,

G.   whereas the attitude of most Member States to accepting Iraqi refugees has been equally restrictive, with the exception of Sweden,

H.   whereas, under customary international law, there is a legal obligation not to return refugees to persecution or serious harm, and to allow asylum seekers fleeing widespread human rights abuses and generalised violence to enter the relevant country, at least temporarily, in order to be screened for refugee status,

I.   whereas Egypt, although not a border country, has been hosting a considerable number of refugees, and whereas Syria, which hosts a high proportion of the Iraqi refugees, no longer recognises the TPR, which was implemented until now without restrictions,

1.  Urges Iraq's bordering countries to abide by their legal duty immediately to admit refugees, particularly those stranded at their borders and belonging to specially targeted minorities such as stateless Palestinians or religious and ethnic minorities;

2.  Welcomes the recent UNHCR appeal to mobilise additional international support in order to fund its work for uprooted Iraqis within their country and in neighbouring States and for foreign refugees in Iraq; calls on the EU and the Member States and other international donors to respond to the UNHCR appeal in support of the programmes for Iraqi refugees and IDPs in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Iran, as well as Egypt; considers it as an extreme emergency and urges that a significant part of the EU budget earmarked for programmes with Iraq be allocated for this purpose;

3.  Considers that the support of the international community is vital in easing the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees and IDPs or those fleeing the country, and therefore asks the Commission and the Member States to support the UNHCR's protection efforts focused on minimum protection from detention and refoulement and non-penalisation for illegal entry; as well as access to education, adequate housing, basic health care facilities and other basic services for those inside and outside Iraq;

4.  Calls on the many donor countries which have been reluctant to face up to a regional Iraqi refugee crisis to take into consideration the fact that the Iraqi authorities and the governments affected in the neighbourhood appear unable to fully cope with the crisis and to reconsider the necessity of providing financial assistance to help those host countries in order to share the burden of this refugee problem by offering third-country resettlement opportunities to those refugees;

5.  Welcomes the holding of an international conference on addressing the humanitarian needs of refugees and IDPs inside Iraq and in neighbouring countries in Geneva on 17 April 2007; urges the Council, the Commission, the authorities in the region and the international community to fully participate in that conference and provide appropriate financial support;

6.  Asks the Member States and the international community, as a demonstration of international burden-sharing, to contribute to the resettlement of Iraqi refugees and stateless persons, including the Palestinian refugees from Iraq stranded in the region;

7.  Calls on Member States, while recognising the efforts deployed by the Swedish Government swiftly and fairly to determine the claims of Iraqi asylum-seekers, in accordance with the above-mentioned UNHCR Return Advisory and Position of 18 December 2006, and to fulfil their obligations under international and Community law to grant refugee status or subsidiary protection to those who are at risk of persecution or serious harm;

8.  Recognises also the efforts made by non-border countries of the region such as Egypt to assist Iraqi refugees; asks this country to pursue its efforts in favour of the Iraqi refugees by keeping its border open and improving conditions for them; asks countries hosting Iraqis to respect their fundamental rights and ensure their access to basic services such as health and education;

9.  Recognises the contribution of the regional Kurdish government in assisting Christian communities that are internally displaced;

10.  Calls on the Iraqi Government, local regional and religious authorities and the Multi-National Coalition Forces in Iraq to take immediate steps to improve security for all the refugees and IDPs in Iraq and end discriminatory practices;

11.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, the Director-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the governments and parliaments of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey and the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Palestinian National Authority.

(1) OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12.

European Parliament resolution on Guinea

P6_TA(2007)0057 RC-B6-0049/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   gravely concerned by President Lansana Conté's declaration of a state of emergency on 13 February 2007 following the general strike launched on 10 January 2007 by Guinea's trade unions and civil society concerning economic and social claims and the violent repression by security forces of a peaceful demonstration held on 17 January 2007 in Conakry,

B.   concerned by the recent violence during which security forces clashed with protestors asking President Conté, who took power in a 1984 coup d'état, to appoint an independent Prime Minister and hand over all his presidential powers,

C.   whereas President Conté has declared a 'state of siege', which includes a 20-hour-a-day curfew, a ban on processions, marches and demonstrations, as well as public and private meetings, and which authorises day and night searches, giving the army extensive powers to take 'all the necessary measures',

D.   whereas violent repression by the army's special forces, in particular the 'Mobile Company for Intervention and Security' and the 'Autonomous Battalion for Presidential Security', has caused a large number of victims, whereas there are allegations of the presence of mercenaries and former guerilla fighters working as paramilitary government forces,

E.   whereas President Conté's appointment of Mr Eugène Camara as Prime Minister on 9 February 2007 was not in accordance with the agreement of 27 January 2007 signed by the government and the unions, which called for a 'consensus Prime Minister' with extensive executive powers for a three-year transition period during which parliamentary and presidential elections would be organised, and has consequently led to continued violence and lawlessness throughout Guinea,

F.   whereas since 2005 there have been several incidents in which Guinean security forces have fired on unarmed demonstrators, notably in June 2006, when the government responded to demonstrations against the rising prices of basic commodities with a brutal crackdown during which the police and soldiers gunned down at least 13 unarmed demonstrators,

G.   whereas Guinea is endowed with gold, iron and bauxite, as well as fertile land and water resources, including fish stocks, which could have contributed to improving the population's living standards if democratic accountability had prevailed in the country,

1.  Strongly condemns the disproportionate and excessive use of force by the Guinean security forces during the recent demonstrations in various parts of the country, which resulted in the death of many civilians, the wounding of several demonstrators and the detention of trade union leaders and others;

2.  Stresses the importance of appointing a consensus Prime Minister, in accordance with the undertakings given by President Conté;

3.  Calls for the establishment of an independent international commission of inquiry, overseen by the United Nations, to investigate the recent killings as well as past human rights abuses, and to identify those responsible and bring them to justice in order to put an end to this impunity;

4.  Calls on the Guinean authorities to order the immediate release of all persons arrested during the demonstration without being properly legally charged and, if such charges exist, to ensure that such persons are given a prompt and fair trial, in which their procedural rights are guaranteed at all times;

5.  Calls for individual and trade union freedoms to be respected and restored and for the authoritarian abuses which have marked President Conté's regime for 23 years to cease; calls for negotiations to be opened with civil society organisations and trade unions with a view to a negotiated settlement of claims;

6.  Calls on the Guinean authorities to put an immediate stop to the killings and calls for a democratic transition towards a system corresponding to the aspirations of the Guinean people;

7.  Calls on the Commission to envisage the political dialogue provided for in Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement;

8.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, the African Union, Economic Community of West African States, the Government of Guinea and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.